you are right, I must have missed it...
Table "public.u"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+-----------------------------+-----------
id | integer |
t | timestamp without time zone |
d | text |
Indexes:
"u_d" btree (d)
"u_id" btree (id)
"u_t" btree (t)
filip@filip=# select oid, relname, pg_Relation_size(oid) from pg_class where relname in('u','u_id','u_t','u_d');
oid | relname | pg_relation_size
-------+---------+------------------
64283 | u | 15187968
64289 | u_id | 6758400
64290 | u_t | 6086656
64291 | u_d | 16482304
filip@filip=# CLUSTER u USING u_t;
CLUSTER
filip@filip=# select oid, relname, pg_Relation_size(oid) from pg_class where relname in('u','u_id','u_t','u_d');
oid | relname | pg_relation_size
-------+---------+------------------
64283 | u | 12115968
64289 | u_id | 3391488
64290 | u_t | 3391488
64291 | u_d | 8216576
(4 rows)
So CLUSTER is effectively CLUSTER + REINDEX... nice.
W dniu 17 grudnia 2010 10:41 użytkownik Marti Raudsepp
<marti@juffo.org> napisał:
2010/12/17 Filip Rembiałkowski <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.com>:
> regarding clustering: it does not help with index bloat.
I'm almost sure it does, CLUSTER re-creates all indexes from scratch
after copying the tuples.
Regards,
Marti
