| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
| Date: | 2003-10-05 03:57:33 |
| Message-ID: | 27655.1065326253@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No. You'd be better off using REINDEX for that, I think.
> I guess my point is that if you forget to run regular vacuum for a
> month, then realize the problem, you can just do a VACUUM FULL and the
> heap is back to a perfect state as if you had been running regular
> vacuum all along. That is not true of indexes. It would be nice if it
> would.
A VACUUM FULL that invoked REINDEX would accomplish that *better* than
one that didn't, because of the problem of duplicate entries for moved
tuples. See my response just now to Alvaro.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-05 04:20:32 | Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-05 03:53:49 | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |