On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Greg Stark wrote:
"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 :)
Right, so that would be in favor of REINDEX {SYSTEM,DATABASE}, which I
don't question ... the only one I question is adding a third USER one ...
it can't hurt, but is it required?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(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
