Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183E09F9475
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:56:22 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 86247-04 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:56:19 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com
 [64.233.166.180])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CCE9F9563
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:56:17 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u77so634576pyb
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	bh=p/G8boiLsPl95wFCR+V/1a92p6jV1MqCMt2rbZwUgSk=;
	b=syqeBRTA5130QZj92s9OrULVI4kNQtRdv4thGgxxQ+dETQf9Aazu37wofl715NC04MEyE//tuT0zKgRqEPO9ewTy2hedEqKn9Rg9BETKkq9kiEoXjV0/6wUNdpJwi1cJmJMlNpL9pYmSI9TfTOK/UR5ylhyA1jUxanorFViQNEU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=CQkRHloqnoNG/mY9mxQIOmKAil96nRch5bM33xG3+CZfkk9gRRmovugaNNuD1IjC8QCEqMADHzBmid2iVfs1/Rxre4h5Q36iMd0XPqj8cyAx+mrXrT8qhgrBR2u4KpaJJriiT/u210ZEAQBiOy3S8iA1/cfRNYDEBD1zg3djlwA=
Received: by 10.65.183.7 with SMTP id k7mr15271268qbp.1189623373661;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.83.8 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2ca799770709121156l7ddbb20agf8086e8bfcbc881a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:56:13 +0300
From: "Mikko Partio" <mpartio@gmail.com>
To: "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Again] Postgres performance problem
Cc: "ruben@rentalia.com" <ruben@rentalia.com>, Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>,
	db@zigo.dhs.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10709121128o1e5883a9n96b1f9ed74901be9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_21819_26870740.1189623373653"
References: <46E636CB.8080008@rentalia.com>
	<43393.192.121.104.48.1189495883.squirrel@zigo.dhs.org>
	<46E64891.9080005@rentalia.com> <20070911225242.GG38801@decibel.org>
	<46E79865.906@rentalia.com>
	<dcc563d10709121128o1e5883a9n96b1f9ed74901be9@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200709/228
X-Sequence-Number: 26773

------=_Part_21819_26870740.1189623373653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/12/07, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/12/07, ruben@rentalia.com <ruben@rentalia.com> wrote:



> > Try a REINDEX. VACUUM FULL is especially hard on the indexes, and it's
> > > easy for them to seriously bloat.
> >
> > Reindex is  done everyday after VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE. I save also
> > the output averyday and save it into a log, and I can check that it is
> > done properly.
>
> Then you're vacuum full is wasted.  A reindex accomplishes the same
> thing, plus shrinks indexes (vacuum full can bloat indexes).


Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?

Regards

MP

------=_Part_21819_26870740.1189623373653
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/12/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Scott Marlowe</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:scott.marlowe@gmail.com">scott.marlowe@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 9/12/07, <a href="mailto:ruben@rentalia.com">ruben@rentalia.com</a> &lt;<a href="mailto:ruben@rentalia.com">ruben@rentalia.com</a>&gt; wrote:</blockquote><div>&nbsp;</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
&gt; &gt; Try a REINDEX. VACUUM FULL is especially hard on the indexes, and it&#39;s<br>&gt; &gt; easy for them to seriously bloat.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Reindex is&nbsp;&nbsp;done everyday after VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE. I save also<br>
&gt; the output averyday and save it into a log, and I can check that it is<br>&gt; done properly.<br><br>Then you&#39;re vacuum full is wasted.&nbsp;&nbsp;A reindex accomplishes the same<br>thing, plus shrinks indexes (vacuum full can bloat indexes).
</blockquote><div><br>Aren&#39;t you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER? <br><br>Regards<br><br>MP<br> </div><br></div><br>

------=_Part_21819_26870740.1189623373653--