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 dead tuples that are located after your useful data. There might > be a need to lock the table for a little while at the end but it seems like > you could reduce that time greatly. > > I had one table that is heavily updated and it grew to 760 MB even with > regular vacuuming. A vacuum full reduced it to 1.1 MB. I am running 7.2.0 > (all my vacuuming is done by superuser). >
Not that I'm against the idea, but isn't this just a sign that your just not vacuuming frequently enough? Robert Treat ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
