Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> No. You'd be better off using REINDEX for that, I think.
> I guess my point is that if you forget to run regular vacuum for a > month, then realize the problem, you can just do a VACUUM FULL and the > heap is back to a perfect state as if you had been running regular > vacuum all along. That is not true of indexes. It would be nice if it > would. A VACUUM FULL that invoked REINDEX would accomplish that *better* than one that didn't, because of the problem of duplicate entries for moved tuples. See my response just now to Alvaro. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings