Re: Vacuum non-clustered tables only

Richard Huxton wrote:
>> Perhaps "VACUUM unclustered" or something?
>
> A couple of thoughts:
>
> 1. You shouldn't routinely be running VACUUM FULL on a recent installation.

In my experience, some tables still must be VACUUM FULL'd from time to
time.  I switched to clustering because it's much more efficient.  I
don't actually do full vacuums anymore.  Not to mention, of course, that
keeping a table clustered usually has very favorable performance benefits.

We have a nice big maintenance window every Sunday night/early morning,
so I have a fair amount of latitude on how I beat the DB up.  I do
clustering, vacuuming, reindexing, and some data maintenance during that
time.  I'm just looking to lose some redundancy.

> 2. Autovacuum should effectively do this, assuming the clustered table
> isn't being updated.

These are heavily updated tables.  Plain vacuum isn't enough, and the
autovacuum facility isn't functional enough for me yet.  If autovacuum
worked for me, and if clustering updated statistics (does it yet?), I
would probably be set.

-Glen