Greg, > I don't think we want to cluster on the primary key. I think we just > want to rewrite the table keeping the same physical ordering.
Agreed. > Well I've certainly seen people whose disks are more than 50% full. > They tend to be the same people who want to compact their tables. I > can't say whether any of them had a single table with associated > indexes that were taking up more than 50% but it's not uncommon to > have a single table that dominates your database. Those people would also need for the tables involved to be fairly small, or to be able to afford a lot of downtime. VACUUM FULL on a 100GB table with current commodity servers can take upwards of 8 hours. I really think the cases of people who have more available downtime than disk space is is vanishingly small group. However, I'll do a survey. Why not? > We could deal with the admin scripts by making VACUUM FULL do the new > behaviour. But I actually don't really like that. I wold prefer to > break VACUUM FULL since anyone doing it routinely is probably > mistaken. We could name the command something which is more > descriptive like VACUUM REWRITE or VACUUM REBUILD or something like > that. Agreed. I like VACUUM REWRITE, as it makes it fairly clear what's going on. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
