elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The order of events seems to be vacuum indexes and then vacuum the
> table. Wouldn't we get more bang if we vacuumed the table and then
> the indexes?
No, the problem is that we can't recycle removed index pages until we
are certain there are not any transactio
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:50:04AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Much later in the day, a vacuum analyze of the
> > db showed that all of the indexes for that table
> > required significant vacuuming, although the
> > table did not.
>
> What do you mean by that e
elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Much later in the day, a vacuum analyze of the
> db showed that all of the indexes for that table
> required significant vacuuming, although the
> table did not.
What do you mean by that exactly? If it's just that the index pages
emptied by one VACUUM aren't
Running version 8.1.2, 1-2G RAM. Configuration
set up to use available RAM. Running autovacuum.
I have a table with 850 rows. The table
gets only inserts (constantly). Once a day
a range of the rows is deleted and an explicit
vacuum analyze of the table is done.
The table has 4 indexes.
M
