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