Re: Why does the query planner use two full indexes, when a dedicated partial index exists? (solved?)

On Monday, December 24, 2012, Richard Neill wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I think periodic reindex may be the solution. Even after reducing the
> autovacuum fraction to 0.05, the index still seems to bloat.
>

Since your index is so tiny compared to the table, I'd lower it even more.
0.0001, maybe.

However, vacuums can't overlap a table, so you can't get the table to be
vacuumed more often than the time it takes to run the vacuum (which took
around 4 minutes at default vacuum cost settings in a toy system) and so
you may need to lower the autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay to 0 for this table.
(I suspect it is all in cache anyway, so the default settings are too
pessimistic.) Finally, you might need to lower autovacuum_naptime, because
the usually table also won't be vacuumed any more often than that.

>
> 1. The documentation still suggests that reindex should not be needed in
> "normal" operation... is this true? Or are the docs wrong? Or have I got
> such an edge case?
>

Your case seems pretty far out there to me.

Cheers,

Jeff