Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.100.1.1.5\))
Subject: Re: Index rebuilding strategy
From: Alban Hertroys <haramrae@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC5iy60ZstfyqPK2tmWLD_QdPTd-0FMfZHHKtyZsOSGZDjJRgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 22:50:56 +0200
Cc: "pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8E8DB597-41BA-4E6F-A792-13B8AA9238D2@gmail.com>
References: <CAC5iy60ZstfyqPK2tmWLD_QdPTd-0FMfZHHKtyZsOSGZDjJRgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Siraj G <tosiraj.g@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8E8DB597-41BA-4E6F-A792-13B8AA9238D2%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On 24 Sep 2025, at 22:42, Siraj G <tosiraj.g@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hello Experts!
>=20
> What are the top pointers we should consider for index rebuild? Check =
its size,  bloat estimate, heavy Updates/Deletes?
>=20
> Please highlight the best practices.

I think just any pointers of corruption, really. OS updates with =
differing collation implementations, known flaky hardware or driver =
issues, checksum discrepancies if you have those turned on and get any =
of those.

The need to rebuild indices should be quite rare. Regular vacuuming and =
analysing should take care of most of the need, with much of those =
happening automatically anyway (could need some tuning though).

Regards,
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.