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 C08BCD9302 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:59:10 -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 18213-09 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:59:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.194]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84925D930C for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:59:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 8399 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2005 16:59:52 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:59:52 -0500 From: Bruno Wolff III To: Stef Cc: Markus Benne , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL vs CLUSTER Message-ID: <20050923165952.GA7327@wolff.to> Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Wolff III , Stef , 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> <20050923142027.GC2298@wolff.to> <20050923181644.161bf160@svb.ucs.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050923181644.161bf160@svb.ucs.co.za> 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: 200509/306 X-Sequence-Number: 14614 On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 18:16:44 +0200, Stef wrote: > Bruno Wolff III mentioned : > => 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). > > What version of postgres was the last version that had > the index bloat problem? You can check the release notes to be sure, but my memory is that the unbounded bloat problem was fixed in 7.4. There still are usage patterns that can result in bloating, but it is limited to some constant multiplier of the minimum index size.