| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sameer Kumar <sameer(dot)kumar(at)ashnik(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yogesh Sharma <Yogesh1(dot)Sharma(at)nectechnologies(dot)in>, PostgreSQL General Discussion Forum <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Query regarding deadlock |
| Date: | 2016-11-25 02:19:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRz-sMJbAG7mgv=c6gLqJaPYvn5DKMRQTQhW9SZ_tz+rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Sameer Kumar <sameer(dot)kumar(at)ashnik(dot)com> wrote:
> Does this mean that you reindex quite often based on a schedule. Personally I don't prefer that. To me it is like you are trying to fix something that is not broken.
>
> Ideally reindex only what needs to be reindexed. I would not want to reindex a table in OLTP env.
Like VACUUM FULL, don't forget that REINDEX needs an exclusive lock
when working. As that's very intrusive, usually you take measures on
your database to be sure that you *never* require it, particularly if
this is a production instance.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sameer Kumar | 2016-11-25 02:24:05 | Re: Query regarding deadlock |
| Previous Message | Jan de Visser | 2016-11-25 02:17:09 | Re: Query regarding deadlock |