> > The conventional VACUUM would then be something you do as part of a DB 
> > reorganization (maybe once every month or so).
> 
> Yes, but in other DB's if you UPDATE all rows in the table, you don't
> double the disk space.

Sure, but what is wrong with keeping the space allocated for the next 
"UPDATE all rows", if that is something the application needs to do frequently ?
PostgreSQL needs more space on disc, but we knew that already :-)

Andreas

Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:46:43 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: AW: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions
> > > The conventional VACUUM would then be something you do as part of a DB
> > > reorganization (maybe once every month or so).
> >
> > Yes, but in other DB's if you UPDATE all rows in the table, you don't
> > double the disk space.
> 
> Sure, but what is wrong with keeping the space allocated for
> the next "UPDATE all rows", if that is something the application
> needs to do frequently ?  PostgreSQL needs more space on disc,
> but we knew that already :-)

In many cases, a VACUUM will not have been run before more space is
needed in the table so you will get ever-increasing sizes until a full
VACUUM.  Only in an optimial light VACUUM state would a table that gets
continually updated _not_ continue to grow.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:10:29 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: AW: AW: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum and Transactions