On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:33, David Walker wrote:
> Vacuum full locks the whole table currently. I was thinking if you used a
> similar to a hard drive defragment that only 2 rows would need to be locked
> at a time. When you're done vacuum/defragmenting you shorten the file to
> discard the d
But doesn't the solution I offer present a possible work around? The
table wouldn't need to be locked (I think) until the first dead tuple
were located. After that, you would only keep the locks until you've
scanned X% of the table and shrunk as needed. The result, I think,
results in increment
Vacuum full locks the whole table currently. I was thinking if you used a
similar to a hard drive defragment that only 2 rows would need to be locked
at a time. When you're done vacuum/defragmenting you shorten the file to
discard the dead tuples that are located after your useful data. Ther
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 02:29, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 05:22, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm thinking that there is an improvement to vacuum which could be made
> > > for 7.4. VACUUM FULLing large, heavily updated ta
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> meaning to VACUUM FULL the whole table, but to work in small chunks and
> relaese all locks and let others access the tables between these ?
AFAICS this is impossible for VACUUM FULL. You can't let other accesses
in and then resume processing, because
On 16 Oct 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 05:22, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm thinking that there is an improvement to vacuum which could be made
> > for 7.4. VACUUM FULLing large, heavily updated tables is a pain. There's
> > very little an application can do t
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 05:22, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm thinking that there is an improvement to vacuum which could be made
> for 7.4. VACUUM FULLing large, heavily updated tables is a pain. There's
> very little an application can do to minimise dead-tuples, particularly if
> the tabl
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:52:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > have a parameter which specified how much of the table is vacuumed. That
> > is, you could specify:
> > VACUUM FULL test 20 precent;
>
> Erm ... but which 20 percent? In other words, how coul
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> have a parameter which specified how much of the table is vacuumed. That
> is, you could specify:
> VACUUM FULL test 20 precent;
Erm ... but which 20 percent? In other words, how could you arrange for
repeated applications of such a command to cover the
That a good idea. That way, if your database slows during specific
windows in time, you can vacuum larger sizes, etc. Seemingly would help
you better manage your vacuuming against system loading.
Greg
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 19:22, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm thinking that there is a
10 matches
Mail list logo
