Re: [GENERAL] GIN Trigram Index Size

On 10/09/15 06:40, Jeff Janes wrote: > Vacuuming will allow the space to be reused internally. It will not > visibly shrink the index, but will mark that space as eligible for reuse. > > If you have a 36GB index and a reindex would have reduced it to 15GB, > then a vacuum will leave it at 36GB

Re: [GENERAL] GIN Trigram Index Size

Hi Christian: On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Christian Ramseyer wrote: > I agree with your append-only and disposable partition approach, it > would work a lot better. The idea with using a second schema for > selective backups is great, I'll totally steal this :) Feel free.

Re: [GENERAL] GIN Trigram Index Size

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Christian Ramseyer wrote: > I have read some discussions about pending list bloat issues, but there > it was suggested that vacuuming the table should reclaim the space, and > this does not seem to the case. The only way I found to reduce the

[GENERAL] GIN Trigram Index Size

Hi Some weeks ago I got some advice here on how to build a trigram index. Now, I have implemented this in our rather large database, which looks like this: We have one table of log events per month, used as partitions via "logs": public | logs | table| postgres public