On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Alvaro >> Herrera<alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>>> The use cases where VACUUM FULL wins currently are where storing two >>>> copies of the table and its indexes concurrently just isn't practical. >>> >>> Yeah, but then do you really need to use VACUUM FULL? If that's really >>> a problem then there ain't that many dead tuples around. > >> That's what I want to believe. But picture if you have, say a >> 1-terabyte table which is 50% dead tuples and you don't have a spare >> 1-terabytes to rewrite the whole table. > > But trying to VACUUM FULL that table is going to be horridly painful > too, and you'll still have bloated indexes afterwards. You might as > well just live with the 50% waste, especially since if you did a > full-table update once you'll probably do it again sometime. > > I'm having a hard time believing that VACUUM FULL really has any > interesting use-case anymore.
What if your large table doesn't have an index? Then there's no way to cluster. I'm a bit skeptical about partitioning as a solution, too. The planner is just not clever enough with partitioned tables, yet. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
