On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> That's normal. VACUUM FULL creates new index pointers for the tuples it >>> moves, which can lead to a bigger index. If it bothers, REINDEX will pack >>> the indexes tighter again. >>> >> >> >> That explains it... and yes, REINDEX did bring the index size back to >> normal. >> >> Would it make sense to mention this in docs of VACUUM FULL? Either at >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/routine-vacuuming.html >> >> or at >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/sql-vacuum.html >> > > Yeah, maybe. Want to suggest a wording? VACUUM FULL may cause a noticeable increase in size of the indexes of the tables that are vacuumed; this is because the VACUUM operation makes new entries in the index for the tuples/rows that have just been moved. OR VACUUM FULL may cause a noticeable increase in size of the indexes, that are on the tables being vacuumed; this is because the VACUUM operation makes new entries in the index for the tuples/rows that have just been moved. Followed By: An appropriate REINDEX command (REINDEX database|table|index ) can reduce the size of such indexes. I think it makes sense to put this on both the above mentioned URLs. Best regards, -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
