"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Why all the choices? What cases are there for doing one without the
> >> other? If you want to get 'fine tuned', do a 'REINDEX TABLE' ... I can
> >> see REINDEX SYSTEM and REINDEX DATABASE (includes SYSTEM), but not the
> >> USER one ..
> >
> > The main argument I can think of for REINDEX USER is that it could be
> > executed by someone who isn't necessarily superuser. Not sure how
> > important that is, though.
>
> Couldn't behaviour of REINDEX DATABASE not take that into account, and 'skip'
> the system indices if not superuser?
I can see a reasonable argument for them to be separated like this. If I
wanted to reindex everything in sight in a large database I would want to
control when each of my user tables was reindexed -- some of them would take
all night for a single table.
But all the system tables together should never be so large as to be a problem
doing them in a single batch and I would never be able to enumerate them all
myself.
So I would probably start with a REINDEX SYSTEM and then go through my tables
and group them into chunks to run in each maintenance window available.
Of course online index rebuilds would be even better :)
--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
