Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL

From: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL
Date: 2024-04-22 00:15:48
Message-ID: CANzqJaBvcGKdhqaZz+b0jNc8WLK74UCDW+zk=Ja78duOjWUBRA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:45 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Why is VACUUM FULL recommended for compressing a table, when CLUSTER does
> > the same thing (similarly doubling disk space), and apparently runs just
> as
> > fast?
>
> CLUSTER makes the additional effort to sort the data per the ordering
> of the specified index. I'm surprised that's not noticeable in your
> test case.
>

Clustering on a completely different index was also 44 seconds.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2024-04-22 00:47:22 Re: error in trigger creation
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2024-04-22 00:06:52 Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL