Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2026-Oct-07, Antonin Houska wrote: > > > ok. What I find disturbing in the first sentence is the "but" conjunction: > > > > "... that clause is given but an index scan is chosen ..." > > > > Shouldn't it rater be "and"? > > > > When I read "but", I usually expect a contradiction. However I see no > > contradiction between specifying the USING INDEX clause and choosing index > > scan. > > You're right, that was pretty hard to read. How about this, following > Radim's suggestion? > > <para> > <command>REPACK</command> creates a temporary copy of the table and all > of its indexes, so you need free disk space at least equal to the sum > of the table size and the index sizes. > </para> > > <para> > If the <literal>USING INDEX</literal> clause is given and the planner > chooses a sequential scan and sort to implement it, a temporary sort > file that uses the table size again is needed in addition to the above. > This method is usually faster than an index scan, but if the disk space > requirement is intolerable, you can disable this choice by temporarily > setting <xref linkend="guc-enable-sort"/> to <literal>off</literal>; or > omitting <literal>USING INDEX</literal> if the table doesn't need to be > reordered. > </para>
Yes, this looks well structured - first the simple case, then the "less simple". > The "... that uses the table size again is needed ..." bit looks > somewhat odd to me, but I don't know how to make it better. The only variant that occurs to me is "... that creates one more copy of the table ..." Just in case. -- Antonin Houska Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
