On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:36:45PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> If I'm considering clustering the Slony-I "sl_log_1" table, forcing it
> into memory *is* something I'll consider doing in order to minimize
> the time that would-be writers are blocked from writing...
Given what Tom Lane recently rep
Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jim C. Nasby") writes:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:34:12AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Utilize CLUSTER; (after vacuum) to reorder the data.
> >
> > Why would you vacuum when cluster is just going to wipe out the dead
> > tuples an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jim C. Nasby") writes:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:34:12AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Utilize CLUSTER; (after vacuum) to reorder the data.
>
> Why would you vacuum when cluster is just going to wipe out the dead
> tuples anyway?
There is one reason to VACUUM
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:34:12AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Utilize CLUSTER; (after vacuum) to reorder the data.
Why would you vacuum when cluster is just going to wipe out the dead
tuples anyway?
> >>Note that while reordering, CLUSTER also gets rid of dead tuples, so if
> >>yo
Hi,
Utilize CLUSTER; (after vacuum) to reorder the data.
Regards
- Original Message -
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Martin Marques" ; "frank church"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:41 PM
Subjec
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 07:01:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Martin Marques escribi?:
> > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, frank church wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Does VACUUMing reorder tables on clustered indices or is it only the
> > >CLUSTER
> > >command that can do that?
> >
> > Cluster does that. Vacuu
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:08:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
>> MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are still visible to anyone else.
> Does it remove tuples that VACUUM FULL wouldn't?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:08:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
> MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are still visible to anyone else.
Does it remove tuples that VACUUM FULL wouldn't? I always thought it
did essentially the same th
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Note that while reordering, CLUSTER also gets rid of dead tuples, so if
> > you cluster you don't need to vacuum.
>
> Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
> MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are stil
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that while reordering, CLUSTER also gets rid of dead tuples, so if
> you cluster you don't need to vacuum.
Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are still visible to anyone else.
Martin Marques escribió:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, frank church wrote:
>
> >
> >Does VACUUMing reorder tables on clustered indices or is it only the
> >CLUSTER
> >command that can do that?
>
> Cluster does that. Vacuum only cleans dead tuples from the tables.
Note that while reordering, CLUSTER al
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, frank church wrote:
Does VACUUMing reorder tables on clustered indices or is it only the CLUSTER
command that can do that?
Cluster does that. Vacuum only cleans dead tuples from the tables.
--
18:02:25 up 4 days, 9:57, 5 users, load average: 1.59, 1.57, 1.62
Does VACUUMing reorder tables on clustered indices or is it only the CLUSTER
command that can do that?
/ r church
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---(end of broadcast)
13 matches
Mail list logo
