X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E35D11F6CB3 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:49:31 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 0.167 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.167 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQ3x4a1F1ndh for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:49:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from zeus.gigaweb.cz (zeus.gigaweb.cz [81.0.236.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88AC511F6C6D for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:49:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 6879 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2006 21:49:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (89.102.142.167) by 0 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2006 21:49:25 -0000 Message-ID: <44398162.6060004@fuzzy.cz> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:49:22 +0200 From: Tomas Vondra User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060131) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: serious problems with vacuuming databases References: <443950FB.4050707@fuzzy.cz> <20060409183747.GB15094@surnet.cl> <44397071.80008@fuzzy.cz> <20060409204555.GB16673@surnet.cl> In-Reply-To: <20060409204555.GB16673@surnet.cl> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200604/185 X-Sequence-Number: 18269 > Huh, I didn't suggest to dump/reload. I suggested CLUSTER. You need to > apply it only to tables where you have lots of dead tuples, which IIRC > are A, C and D. Sorry, I should read more carefully. Will clustering a table according to one index solve problems with all the indexes on the table (if the table has for example two indexes?). t.v.