From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: remove flatfiles.c |
Date: | 2009-09-02 03:02:01 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070909012002u4f38ec4ds54913ec96e0538a2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Alvaro
Herrera<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> > But trying to VACUUM FULL that table is going to be horridly painful
>> > too, and you'll still have bloated indexes afterwards. You might as
>> > well just live with the 50% waste, especially since if you did a
>> > full-table update once you'll probably do it again sometime.
>> >
>> > I'm having a hard time believing that VACUUM FULL really has any
>> > interesting use-case anymore.
>>
>> What if your large table doesn't have an index? Then there's no way to cluster.
>
> But there's nothing saying we cannot provide a version of CLUSTER that
> does not follow any index and just copies the live tuples.
Agreed.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-02 03:07:17 | Re: A bug in scan.l |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-02 02:58:46 | Re: remove flatfiles.c |