| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2024-04-22 16:29:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYFHCf+cd=wxJmzRqezQKy8rAKv2_QyvipzE1qboBXXvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 08:37 Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> writes:
>> > But wouldn't it be good that VACUUM FULL uses that index defined by
>> > Cluster, if it exists ?
>>
>> No ... what would be the difference then?
>>
>
> What the VACUUM docs "should" do, it seems, is suggest CLUSTER on the PK,
> if the PK is a sequence (whether that be an actual sequence, or a timestamp
> or something else that grows monotonically).
>
> That's because the data is already roughly in PK order.
>
If things are bad enough to require a vacuum full that doesn't seem like a
good assumption. Any insert-only table or one with a reduced fill-factor
maybe.
David J
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marcos Pegoraro | 2024-04-22 17:50:24 | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-04-22 16:16:26 | Re: adding a generated column to a table? |