| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Graham Davis <gdavis(at)refractions(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: index growth problem |
| Date: | 2006-10-18 22:51:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20061018225156.GG56874@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:39:56PM -0700, Graham Davis wrote:
> So I guess any changes that were made to make VACUUM and FSM include
> indexes
> does not remove the necessity to reindex (as long as we don't want index
> sizes to bloat and grow larger than they need be).
> Is that correct?
Not in recent releases, no. Remember that any index on a field that gets
update activity will naturally have some amount of empty space due to
page splits, but this is normal (and actually desireable). So you can't
just compare index size before and after a REINDEX and assume
something's wrong if REINDEX shrinks the index; that gain is artificial.
So long as you are vacuuming frequently enough and keep the free space
map large enough, there shouldn't be any need to REINDEX.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-18 23:00:45 | Re: index growth problem |
| Previous Message | Graham Davis | 2006-10-18 22:39:56 | Re: index growth problem |