Re: Vacuum Full - Questions - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Patrick B
Subject Re: Vacuum Full - Questions
Date
Msg-id CAJNY3isRfbsavhDox4PAWmbnwhvW9uyP=r93rTGgknJQrBBDHA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum Full - Questions  (Venkata B Nagothi <nag1010@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Vacuum Full - Questions  (Venkata B Nagothi <nag1010@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general


2016-09-01 11:53 GMT+12:00 Venkata B Nagothi <nag1010@gmail.com>:

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Patrick B <patrickbakerbr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,

A dev has ran a VACUUM FULL command into our test database running PostgreSQL 9.5 (I know... goddamn!!!!)...

... after the Vacuum Full, some queries start using SEQ scans instead of indexes...

Does that happen because of the size of the table? The table that I'm referring to is 150MB big after the vacuum (Before was 1G)...

Yes, it is possible that sequential scans after vacuum full are cheaper than Index scans before vacuum full ? do you see improvement in query response times ? 
How does the cost differ ?

Regards,
Venkata B N

Fujitsu Australia


Well... the response time was worst than when using index.. that's very weird... I've re-created the indexes now a ran ANALYZE and the query is using again the index.. just wanted understand what happened...


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Venkata B Nagothi
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum Full - Questions
Next
From: "dandl"
Date:
Subject: UPDATE OR REPLACE?