From: | "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index size increases after VACUUM FULL |
Date: | 2008-09-30 10:31:50 |
Message-ID: | 65937bea0809300331n3e49884ah60cbd87981c0c3ea@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
>> I noticed something strange today, and thought I should report it. I
>> vacuumed a database, and as expected, one of the table's size decreased
>> (other table were VACUUMed individually earlier); but o my astonishment,
>> the
>> size of the UNIQUE KEY index on one of the columns increased.
>>
>
> That's normal. VACUUM FULL creates new index pointers for the tuples it
> moves, which can lead to a bigger index. If it bothers, REINDEX will pack
> the indexes tighter again.
That explains it... and yes, REINDEX did bring the index size back to
normal.
Would it make sense to mention this in docs of VACUUM FULL? Either at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/routine-vacuuming.html
or at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/sql-vacuum.html
Best regards,
--
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-30 11:02:51 | FSM rewrite committed, loose ends |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-30 09:39:35 | Re: Index size increases after VACUUM FULL |