Re: Large table performance and vacuum

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
Cc: gavin(at)ipalsoftware(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large table performance and vacuum
Date: 2004-03-05 23:06:21
Message-ID: 12133.1078527981@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> Assuming a "normal" usage pattern, regular VACUUMing, and no
> instances of corrupted indexes, are there any scenarios in which one
> would need to REINDEX either user or system tables post 7.4?

Ideally not, but we'll have to wait for more field experience before we
really know whether the existing fix covers all "normal" usage patterns.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Garamond 2004-03-06 05:19:59 Re: relocatable binary distribution
Previous Message Mike Mascari 2004-03-05 22:48:00 Re: Large table performance and vacuum