From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL |
Date: | 2024-04-22 21:03:35 |
Message-ID: | e052d443-d260-49d2-9321-87a940239445@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 4/22/24 13:59, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:21 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> <mailto: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..
>
And the link is?
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2024-04-22 21:11:22 | Re: issue with reading hostname |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2024-04-22 20:59:44 | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL |