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

Re: VACUUM vs VACUUM ANALYZE vs CLUSTER

From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh(at)starjuice(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VACUUM vs VACUUM ANALYZE vs CLUSTER
Date: 2001-09-20 12:16:53
Message-ID: 2799.1000988213@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 23:37:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> Conversely, VACUUM just before CLUSTER is a complete waste of time,
> since any dead tuples that VACUUM might remove won't be copied by
> CLUSTER anyway.

Okay.  So I'm right in thinking that

-> VACUUM then CLUSTER			VACUUM pointless
-> VACUUM ANALYZE then CLUSTER		ditto
-> CLUSTER then VACUUM			ditto
-> CLUSTER then VACUUM ANALYZE		ANALYZE useful

> Feel free to submit suggested documentation patches... if you are
> confused, so will be those who follow, so tell us how to make it
> clearer!

Sure.  Is the HTML the documentation source format as well, or is there
some SGML or something else that I should create patches against?

BTW, you mentioned PostgreSQL 7.2.  I assume you were just pointing out
that you can ANALYZE independently of a VACUUM in 7.2, rather than
recommending its use in a hard-working production environment?

Last thing... any chance that CLUSTER will learn some time soon to
automatically recreate my indeces and grants for me? :-)

Thanks!

Ciao,
Sheldon.

Responses

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: David LeblingDate: 2001-09-20 13:05:02
Subject: Re: Replace Old Table with New
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-09-20 06:45:58
Subject: Re: Replace Old Table with New

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