From: Stef <svb@ucs.co.za>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Cc: Markus Benne <markus@m-bass.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL vs CLUSTER
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:16:44 +0200
Message-ID: <20050923181644.161bf160@svb.ucs.co.za> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050923142027.GC2298@wolff.to>
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>
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?
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: svb@ucs.co.za, bruno@wolff.to, markus@m-bass.com
Subject: Re: VACUUM FULL vs CLUSTER
In-Reply-To: <20050923181644.161bf160@svb.ucs.co.za>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox