Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Marlowe
Subject Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
Date
Msg-id dcc563d10709121207q66f09c33ldcd181e4a2876904@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem  ("Mikko Partio" <mpartio@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
List pgsql-performance
On 9/12/07, Mikko Partio <mpartio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/07, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/12/07, ruben@rentalia.com <ruben@rentalia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Try a REINDEX. VACUUM FULL is especially hard on the indexes, and it's
> > > > easy for them to seriously bloat.
> > >
> > > Reindex is  done everyday after VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE. I save also
> > > the output averyday and save it into a log, and I can check that it is
> > > done properly.
> >
> > Then you're vacuum full is wasted.  A reindex accomplishes the same
> > thing, plus shrinks indexes (vacuum full can bloat indexes).
>
> Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?

I don't think so.  reindex (which runs on tables and indexes, so the
name is a bit confusing, I admit) basically was originally a "repair"
operation that rewrote the whole relation and wasn't completely
transaction safe (way back, 7.2 days or so I think).  Due to the
issues with vacuum full bloating indexes, and being slowly replaced by
regular vacuum, reindex received some attention to make it transaction
/ crash safe and has kind of take the place of vacuum full in terms of
"how to fix bloated objects".

cluster, otoh, rewrites the table into index order.

Either one does what a vacuum full did / does, but generally does it better.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Mikko Partio"
Date:
Subject: Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
Next
From: Frank Schoep
Date:
Subject: Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem