Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D8064FE37 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:39:27 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27099-02 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:39:24 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4458164FDC1 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:39:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mBUFdL1e015382; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:39:21 -0500 (EST) To: Guillaume Lelarge cc: Laszlo Nagy , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Big index sizes In-reply-to: <4959E807.1090107@lelarge.info> References: <4959E477.9050700@shopzeus.com> <4959E807.1090107@lelarge.info> Comments: In-reply-to Guillaume Lelarge message dated "Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:21:11 +0100" Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:39:21 -0500 Message-ID: <15381.1230651561@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200812/229 X-Sequence-Number: 32265 Guillaume Lelarge writes: > Laszlo Nagy a écrit : >> We have serveral table where the index size is much bigger than the >> table size. >> ... >> Vacuuming a table does not rebuild the indexes, am I right? > Neither VACUUM nor VACUUM FULL rebuild the indexes. CLUSTER and REINDEX do. In fact, VACUUM FULL tends to make indexes *more* bloated not less so. One fairly likely explanation for how you got into this situation is overeager use of VACUUM FULL. regards, tom lane