| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Lebling | 2001-09-20 13:05:02 | Re: Replace Old Table with New |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-20 06:45:58 | Re: Replace Old Table with New |