On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:50:04AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Much later in the day, a vacuum analyze of the > > db showed that all of the indexes for that table > > required significant vacuuming, although the > > table did not. > > What do you mean by that exactly? If it's just that the index pages > emptied by one VACUUM aren't actually recycled till the next one, > that's by design. > > regards, tom lane
Mine is a case where a table with constant inserts has a range of data deleted once daily. So you are saying that to truly vacuum a table and its indexes that the table should be vacuumed twice or more. The order of events seems to be vacuum indexes and then vacuum the table. Wouldn't we get more bang if we vacuumed the table and then the indexes? No doubt there is a reason for the ordering as it stands but I am not familiar with it. Perhaps it is not optimal to fully vacuum a table and its indexes? --elein [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
