Jimmy Choi escribió:
> Presumably, even if CLUSTER does reindexing internally, it only does
> that for the index used for clustering. Since REINDEX includes all
> indices, CLUSTER cannot truly replace REINDEX. Correct?
No. Cluster rewrites all indexes (otherwise their entries would end up
pointin
Presumably, even if CLUSTER does reindexing internally, it only does
that for the index used for clustering. Since REINDEX includes all
indices, CLUSTER cannot truly replace REINDEX. Correct?
Jimmy
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig Ringer escribió
Craig Ringer escribió:
> It's not stated explicitly, but I'm pretty sure discussion here has
> mentioned that too. Given that, VACUUM FULL on a just-CLUSTERed table
> should be redundant.
It is, and a REINDEX is redundant too because CLUSTER does it
internally.
--
Alvaro Herrera
Jimmy Choi wrote:
Hello,
Does running "cluster" remove the need to run "vacuum"?
My understanding is that `CLUSTER' creates a new table file, then swaps
it out for the old one.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/sql-cluster.html
" During the cluster operation, a temporary copy of th
Hello,
Does running "cluster" remove the need to run "vacuum"?
I get a feeling that since cluster is already physically reordering the
rows, it may as well remove the dead rows... no?
My second question is, if vacuum is still needed, does it matter whether
I run vacuum first or cluster first?
Hello,
Does running "cluster" remove the need to run "vacuum"?
I get a feeling that since cluster is already physically reordering
the rows, it may as well remove the dead rows... no?
My second question is, if vacuum is still needed, does it matter
whether I run vacuum first or cluster first?
H
