Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Big index sizes
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
- Cc: Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: Big index sizes
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:39:21 -0500
- Message-id: <15381.1230651561@sss.pgh.pa.us> <text/plain>
Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> writes: > Laszlo Nagy a écrit : >> We have serveral table where the index size is much bigger than the >> table size. >> ... >> Vacuuming a table does not rebuild the indexes, am I right? > Neither VACUUM nor VACUUM FULL rebuild the indexes. CLUSTER and REINDEX do. In fact, VACUUM FULL tends to make indexes *more* bloated not less so. One fairly likely explanation for how you got into this situation is overeager use of VACUUM FULL. regards, tom lane
- References:
- Big index sizes
- From: Laszlo Nagy
- Re: Big index sizes
- From: Guillaume Lelarge
- Big index sizes
- Prev by Date: Re: perform 1 check vs exception when unique_violation
- Next by Date: Poor plan choice in prepared statement
- Previous by thread: Re: Big index sizes
- Next by thread: Re: Big index sizes
- Indexes: