> > Although VACUUM and VACUUM FULL is different, then result is same (depends > on detail level) - the data files are optimized for other processing. You > should to see a VACUUM like family of commands that does some data files > optimizations. VACUUM, VACUUM FULL, VACUUM FREEZE, VACUUM ANALYZE, ... > Personally I don't think so we need to implement new synonym command for > this case. >
Here's how I understand what you wrote : "Each and every vacuum operations are different flavours for files optimization so it's legitimate to use similar names". I agree for VACUUM ANALYZE and VACUUM FREEZE that can be seen as options to do more things than a simple VACUUM. But I disagree for VACUUM FULL that isn't an option to do one more thing than VACUUM does. VACUUM FULL is a complete different process. Let's take an example: In a production server with average production load, if you're already running a VACUUM, you can change it to a VACUUM ANALYZE without many risks. But I wouldn't dare try a VACUUM FULL without pg_repack. > Why you you cannot to say your students - "VACUUM FULL is like SHRINK in > SQL Server"? > I do explain that to my students but I'm not sure they memorize it, because they do have a lot to memorize in a training session. I keep meeting customers to who I have to explain that a simple VACUUM doesn't rebuild indexes. Am I the only one facing that problem ? > Regards > > Pavel > Regards Lætitia
