Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal
Date: 2007-05-16 16:20:38
Message-ID: 20070516162035.GI1785@mathom.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-performance

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>Maybe, but we should also mention that CLUSTER is a likely faster
>workaround.

Unless, of course, you don't particularly care about the order of the
items in your table; you might end up wasting vastly more time rewriting
tables due to unnecessary clustering than for full vacuums on a table
that doesn't need it.

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-05-16 16:38:04 Re: [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-05-16 16:17:02 Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Browne 2007-05-16 19:34:42 Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-05-16 16:17:02 Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal