| From: | "Jimmy Choi" <yhjchoi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "vacuum" and "cluster" |
| Date: | 2008-04-16 19:21:20 |
| Message-ID: | 5770602b0804161221u1bda561cr71349626d268742d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Presumably, even if CLUSTER does reindexing internally, it only does
that for the index used for clustering. Since REINDEX includes all
indices, CLUSTER cannot truly replace REINDEX. Correct?
Jimmy
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Craig Ringer escribió:
>
>
> > It's not stated explicitly, but I'm pretty sure discussion here has
> > mentioned that too. Given that, VACUUM FULL on a just-CLUSTERed table
> > should be redundant.
>
> It is, and a REINDEX is redundant too because CLUSTER does it
> internally.
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wilson | 2008-04-16 19:27:24 | Re: table as log (multiple writers and readers) |
| Previous Message | Sam Mason | 2008-04-16 19:21:15 | Re: Storage sizes for dates/times (documentation bug?) |