Re: VACUUM Question

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VACUUM Question
Date: 2006-01-31 19:52:05
Message-ID: 20060131195205.GY95850@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:14:45PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> > As for Reindex, I'm not entirely sure, I don't think you would benefit
> > from reindex because you aren't updating or deleting. Can anyone comment
> > on this? Is is possibile that a table with lots of inserts resulting in
> > lots of page splits etc could ever benifit form REINDEX?
>
> I could imagine a CLUSTER doing some good, and if that's the case,
> REINDEX could have some favorable results. But you'd better have a
> real specific model as to why that would be...

Aside from the cluster case, are there any issues with how page splits
in the b-tree are done that could lead to better performance after a
REINDEX?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-01-31 20:23:50 Re: "xmin" system column
Previous Message Mott Leroy 2006-01-31 19:50:39 help with locked table(s)/transactions(s)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeffrey W. Baker 2006-01-31 20:01:22 Re: New project launched : PostgreSQL GUI Installer for
Previous Message Joachim Wieland 2006-01-31 19:43:21 Re: Policy on schema-qualified names