On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:20 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > > a) To date, I have yet to hear a single person bring up an actual > > real-life use-case where VACUUM FULL was desireable and REWRITE > > would not be. > > Would rewrite have handled this?: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01016.php
If REWRITE is just a CLUSTER using seqscan, then no If it is a sequence of 1. ordinary VACUUM (it can't run out of FSM anymore, no?) 2. a process moving live tuples from end (using reverse seqscan) to free space found scanning in first-to-last direction, either one tuple at a time or one page at a time, until the two scans meet 3. another ordinary VACUUM to actually reclaim the free space 4. repeat a few times so that tuples at the end of relation (for whatever reason) added while doing 1-3 are also moved towards beginning then yes, it would have taken some time, but it would have definitely helped It would still have caused index bloat, so to get full benefit of it, one should have finished it up with an equivalent of CONCURRENT REINDEX. -- Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability Services, Consulting and Training -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
