| 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 20:59:44 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaCNn-Pd9Zyi4KvxbZ9qqR-ND9gUk1wgHKKYtxe0z7vh=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:21 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
wrote:
[snip]
> Which gets us back to your comment upstream:
>
> "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)."
>
> This is a case specific to you and this particular circumstance, not a
> general rule for VACUUM FULL. If for no other reason then it might make
> more sense for the application that the CLUSTER be done on some other
> index then the PK.
>
On Stack Exchange, I've got a question on how to determine when to run
CLUSTER. It ties in strongly with this thread..
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-04-22 21:03:35 | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-04-22 20:25:51 | Re: issue with reading hostname |