| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |