Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's normal. VACUUM FULL creates new index pointers for the tuples it
moves, which can
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> That's normal. VACUUM FULL creates new index pointers for the tuples it
>>> moves, which can lead to
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's normal. VACUUM FULL creates new index pointers for the tuples it
moves, which can lead to a bigger index. If it bothers, REINDEX will pack
the indexes tighter again.
That explains it...
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
>>I noticed something strange today, and thought I should report it. I
>> vacuumed a database, and as expected, one of the table's size decreased
>> (other table were VACUUMed individually
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
I noticed something strange today, and thought I should report it. I
vacuumed a database, and as expected, one of the table's size decreased
(other table were VACUUMed individually earlier); but o my astonishment, the
size of the UNIQUE KEY index on one of the columns inc
Hi All,
I noticed something strange today, and thought I should report it. I
vacuumed a database, and as expected, one of the table's size decreased
(other table were VACUUMed individually earlier); but o my astonishment, the
size of the UNIQUE KEY index on one of the columns increased. Here's
