Re: Vacuum and Large Objects

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com>, Simon Windsor <simon(dot)windsor(at)cornfield(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum and Large Objects
Date: 2012-01-06 07:51:24
Message-ID: 1325836284.2311.4.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 07:12 +0100, Stefan Keller wrote:
> Hi Igor
> 2011/12/16 Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> wrote: > But I think,
> your problem is right here:
> >
> > " running VACUUM FULL pg_largeobject"
> >
> > If you are running "VACUUM FULL ..." on the table, you should follow it with the "REINDEX TABLE ...", at least on PG versions prior to 9.0.
>
> I'm pretty sure that VACUUM FULL builds new indexes. That's at least
> of how I understand the docs, especially the first "tip" here
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/routine-vacuuming.html
>

Before 9.0, VACUUM FULL required a REINDEX afterwards if you want to
keep decent performances.

With 9.0, it is no longer required because the new VACUUM FULL doesn't
bloat the index anymore.

So, in a sense, you were both right :) The documentation you're
referring to is the 9.0 manual. And Igor specified that one need to
REINDEX after VACUUM FULL for any release prior to 9.0. Both right.

--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
PostgreSQL Sessions #3: http://www.postgresql-sessions.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message prakashn 2012-01-06 07:54:04 Re: Running multiple versions
Previous Message Misa Simic 2012-01-06 07:37:25 Re: function return update count