Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwYFHCf+cd=wxJmzRqezQKy8rAKv2_QyvipzE1qboBXXvw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL (Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: CLUSTER vs. VACUUM FULL
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 08:37 Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br> writes:
> But wouldn't it be good that VACUUM FULL uses that index defined by
> Cluster, if it exists ?
No ... what would be the difference then?What the VACUUM docs "should" do, it seems, is suggest CLUSTER on the PK, if the PK is a sequence (whether that be an actual sequence, or a timestamp or something else that grows monotonically).That's because the data is already roughly in PK order.
If things are bad enough to require a vacuum full that doesn't seem like a good assumption. Any insert-only table or one with a reduced fill-factor maybe.
David J
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: