Bohdan Linda wrote:
From the postgresql manual
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/maintenance.html :
" The standard form of VACUUM is best used with the goal of maintaining
a fairly level steady-state usage of disk space. If you need to return
disk space to the operating system you can use VACUUM FULL ? but what's
the point of releasing disk space that will only have to be allocated
again soon? Moderately frequent standard VACUUM runs are a better
approach than infrequent VACUUM FULL runs for maintaining
heavily-updated tables."
From this I conclude that an ordinary VACUUM is sufficent to your
purpose cause you insert/delete almost the same amount of data daily.
But then again I can be mistaken so if anyone can back me up here or
throw the manual on me will be nice ;P
If I vacuum only the table, the records may be used by new lines, that is
fine. Problem is, that when creating select on such table, it takes more
pages to be read from the IO (it will read laso deleted rows) thus the
select will last a bit longer.
regards,
Bohdan
As far as I understand the vacuum process, it does delete the "deleted
rows" so the next queries after the vacuum will not read those rows.
Of course that the table will be the same size as with the "deleted
rows" but I dont think that with a proper index it will result in any
meaningful overhead...
But then again its just my opinion and anyway lately im feeling
increasingly amateur at this subject... :)
Cheers!
Ben-Nes Yonatan
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
