Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal
Date: 2007-05-16 16:20:38
Message-ID: 20070516162035.GI1785@mathom.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-performance
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>Maybe, but we should also mention that CLUSTER is a likely faster
>workaround.

Unless, of course, you don't particularly care about the order of the 
items in your table; you might end up wasting vastly more time rewriting 
tables due to unnecessary clustering than for full vacuums on a table 
that doesn't need it.

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-05-16 16:38:04
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-05-16 16:17:02
Subject: Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Chris BrowneDate: 2007-05-16 19:34:42
Subject: Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-05-16 16:17:02
Subject: Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group