Thanks to everyone for your comments. It does sound like my understanding
was basically correct, but also that autovacuum is still worthwhile in my
situation, for reasons other than concurrency.
///ark
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:29:46PM -0700, Mark Wilden wrote:
>> My theory is that since there are no outdated nor deleted rows, VACUUM
>> doesn't do anything.
> Rolled back transactions on an insert-only table can leave behind
> dead rows. Also, even if
In response to Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> My coworker and I are having an argument about whether it's necessary
> to VACUUM an insert-only table.
>
> My theory is that since there are no outdated nor deleted rows, VACUUM
> doesn't do anything. I just loaded a TRUNCATEd table with no inde
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:29:46PM -0700, Mark Wilden wrote:
> My coworker and I are having an argument about whether it's necessary
> to VACUUM an insert-only table.
>
> My theory is that since there are no outdated nor deleted rows, VACUUM
> doesn't do anything.
Rolled back transactions on an i
My coworker and I are having an argument about whether it's necessary
to VACUUM an insert-only table.
My theory is that since there are no outdated nor deleted rows, VACUUM
doesn't do anything. I just loaded a TRUNCATEd table with no indexes
with 4 million records, indexed it, then ran VACUUM. The
