From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement
 proposal
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:34:42 -0400
Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <608xbotve5.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
References: <87lkfqavg9.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan> <20070515174427.GG1785@mathom.us>
	<87hcqdb4g5.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan> <20070516154809.GL14548@nasby.net>
	<877ir892ss.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan>
	<20070516160926.GX4582@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20070516162035.GI1785@mathom.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.20 (linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2gTOZj/KbcM5h0ZWdmc/bSq1zHo=
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org

mstone+postgres@mathom.us (Michael Stone) writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:09:26PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>Maybe, but we should also mention that CLUSTER is a likely faster
>>workaround.
>
> Unless, of course, you don't particularly care about the order of
> the items in your table; you might end up wasting vastly more time
> rewriting tables due to unnecessary clustering than for full vacuums
> on a table that doesn't need it.

Actually, this is irrelevant.

If CLUSTER is faster than VACUUM FULL (and if it isn't, in all cases,
it *frequently* is, and probably will be, nearly always, soon), then
it's a faster workaround.
-- 
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html
"What if you slept?  And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed?
 And what if, in your dream, you went to heaven and there
 plucked a strange and beautiful flower?  And what if, when
 you awoke, you had the flower in your hand?  Ah, what then?"
    --Coleridge