X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434A1D9161 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:19:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78095-06 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:19:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.194]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDC2AD9117 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:19:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 6406 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2005 14:20:27 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:20:27 -0500 From: Bruno Wolff III To: Markus Benne Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL vs CLUSTER Message-ID: <20050923142027.GC2298@wolff.to> Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Wolff III , Markus Benne , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <5.2.0.9.1.20050920144041.0287c300@pop.puc.cl> <1127242399.26562.15.camel@host-140.engineering.n-able.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1127242399.26562.15.camel@host-140.engineering.n-able.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/294 X-Sequence-Number: 14602 On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 14:53:19 -0400, Markus Benne wrote: > I have a table that is purged by 25% each night. I'd like to do a > vacuum nightly after the purge to reclaim the space, but I think I'll > still need to do a vacuum full weekly. > > Would there be any benefit to doing a cluster instead of the vacuum? If you have a proper FSM setting you shouldn't need to do vacuum fulls (unless you have an older version of postgres where index bloat might be an issue).