| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Big index sizes |
| Date: | 2008-12-30 15:39:21 |
| Message-ID: | 15381.1230651561@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> writes:
> Laszlo Nagy a crit :
>> We have serveral table where the index size is much bigger than the
>> table size.
>> ...
>> Vacuuming a table does not rebuild the indexes, am I right?
> Neither VACUUM nor VACUUM FULL rebuild the indexes. CLUSTER and REINDEX do.
In fact, VACUUM FULL tends to make indexes *more* bloated not less so.
One fairly likely explanation for how you got into this situation is
overeager use of VACUUM FULL.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | bricklen | 2008-12-30 18:59:23 | Poor plan choice in prepared statement |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-30 14:50:55 | Re: perform 1 check vs exception when unique_violation |