On 2025-09-18 Th 6:53 PM, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
I highly doubt that anybody is going to be confused in the slightest
about what the REPACK command does, or that they would start to think
about when did they PACK anything before. That sort of argument seems
entirely artificial, and that is not h
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 01:42:29AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-Sep-16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I am starting to get worried about the confusing of adding a REPACK
> > command. We already have a lot of confusion around vacuum and analyze:
> >
> > * autoanalyze does vacuum
On 2025-Sep-19, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 21:36, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > So, there's already an implementation of an index-organized table in
> > OrioleDB, as I understand, so maybe we can ask Alexander K. about this.
> > I suspect it's fine to say that if you have a tab
On 2025-Sep-19, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Admittedly I haven't thought about clause like ORDER BY yet, but I wonder if
> it'd really be useful. My understanding is that the purpose of clustering is
> to make index scan more efficient:
Not necessarily. For some queries in some workloads, having tup
David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 23:58, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > Admittedly I haven't thought about clause like ORDER BY yet, but I wonder if
> > it'd really be useful. My understanding is that the purpose of clustering is
> > to make index scan more efficient: with a clustered tab
On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 23:58, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Admittedly I haven't thought about clause like ORDER BY yet, but I wonder if
> it'd really be useful. My understanding is that the purpose of clustering is
> to make index scan more efficient: with a clustered table, the heap tuples
> pertaini
Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Sep-19, David Rowley wrote:
>
> > I was just thinking about how much of a heap-ism cluster using an
> > index is. If we were to ever have an index organised table AM, what
> > would it mean to REPACK tab USING INDEX idx? Would that "secondary"
> > index then go aw
On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 21:36, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2025-Sep-19, David Rowley wrote:
>
> > I was just thinking about how much of a heap-ism cluster using an
> > index is. If we were to ever have an index organised table AM, what
> > would it mean to REPACK tab USING INDEX idx? Would that "
On 2025-Sep-17, David G. Johnston wrote:
> That changes logical aspects of a table and so would be done as part of
> alter table, IMO. “AT tbl Rearrange columns (names list) “
Yes.
> Concretely, maybe we should remove vacuum full from the vacuum command
> page, and just call it out as compatibil
On 2025-Sep-19, David Rowley wrote:
> I was just thinking about how much of a heap-ism cluster using an
> index is. If we were to ever have an index organised table AM, what
> would it mean to REPACK tab USING INDEX idx? Would that "secondary"
> index then go away and the table would become that i
Em qua., 17 de set. de 2025 às 10:17, David G. Johnston <
[email protected]> escreveu:
> That changes logical aspects of a table and so would be done as part of
> alter table, IMO. “AT tbl Rearrange columns (names list) “
>
If this command recreates entirely that table, it is not only a
On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 03:03, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> So there two operations here. One is
> REPACK tab USING INDEX idx
> which we currently call CLUSTER, and there is also
> REPACK TAB
> (no index specified) which we currently call VACUUM FULL.
I was just thinking about how much of a heap-ism
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:55 PM Álvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2025-Sep-17, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, David Rowley
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 01:09, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > > > RETABLE just isn't a word. The code sometimes calls this a REWRITE
On 2025-Sep-17, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, David Rowley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 01:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > RETABLE just isn't a word. The code sometimes calls this a REWRITE of
> > > a table, which would be reasonable.
> >
> > +1. I was readin
On 2025-Sep-18, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Uh, if VACUUM FULL and CLUSTER functionality are going to eventually
> point to REPACK, REPACK is the wrong name.
I obviously don't agree.
> While I can see REPACK having a similar function to VACUUM FULL, the
> ordering idea of CLUSTER just doesn't fit int
On 18/09/2025 16:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 05:05:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:59:55AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
I mean, it's PRETTY confusing that VACUUM FULL does something much
more similar to CLUSTER than it is to VACUUM. We can't ever
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 05:05:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:59:55AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I mean, it's PRETTY confusing that VACUUM FULL does something much
> > more similar to CLUSTER than it is to VACUUM. We can't ever get out
> > from under that confusion
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:59:55AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > By and large, I don't think I like this renaming proposal.
> > Maybe eventually it would reduce confusion, but there will be
> > a long interval where it adds more.
>
> I mean, it's
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 01:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> > RETABLE just isn't a word. The code sometimes calls this a REWRITE of
> > a table, which would be reasonable.
>
> +1. I was reading this yesterday wondering why "REWRITE" didn't get a
>
On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 01:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> RETABLE just isn't a word. The code sometimes calls this a REWRITE of
> a table, which would be reasonable.
+1. I was reading this yesterday wondering why "REWRITE" didn't get a
mention. The problem I have with REPACK is that "re" indicates tha
On 2025-Sep-17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> So the CLUSTER command is removed and people should use REPACK instead?
> And VACUUM FULL stays unchanged?
No, not removed. It's going to stay, to avoid breaking scripts. People
should use REPACK on new code going forward, but existing code is not
going t
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> On 2025-Sep-17, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> Concretely, maybe we should remove vacuum full from the vacuum command
>> page, and just call it out as compatibility spelling of repack on its
>> page. Maybe do the same for cluster (I haven’t dived into the ne
Em ter., 16 de set. de 2025 às 23:01, Robert Haas
escreveu:
> I think RETABLE is not a proposal to be taken seriously. That's
> extremely confusing.
>
This feature could be used in a future version to rearrange fields in a
table, for better padding.
I don't think we have another one available fo
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:04 AM Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Em ter., 16 de set. de 2025 às 23:01, Robert Haas
> escreveu:
>> I think RETABLE is not a proposal to be taken seriously. That's
>> extremely confusing.
>
> This feature could be used in a future version to rearrange fields in a
> table,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> By and large, I don't think I like this renaming proposal.
> Maybe eventually it would reduce confusion, but there will be
> a long interval where it adds more.
I mean, it's PRETTY confusing that VACUUM FULL does something much
more similar to CL
On Wed, 17 Sept 2025, 03:01 Robert Haas, wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 7:42 PM Álvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Peter E suggested that since we have REINDEX to rewrite indexes, then
> > the command to rewrite tables should be RETABLE. I haven't been able to
> > get myself to like that idea, and a
On 2025-Sep-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not at all in love with documenting VACUUM FULL and CLUSTER as
> being fundamentally the same thing. I think that is an implementation
> happenstance that could go away as easily as it appeared. Even if you
> think we'll never again rewrite it for heap, what
Ranier Vilela :
> SqlServer has similar feature.
> SHRINK
MySQL/MariaDB
OPTIMIZE TABLE table_name
SQL Server
ALTER TABLE table_name REBUILD
DBCC SHRINKFILE
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE
Oracle
ALTER TABLE table_name SHRINK SPACE
SQLite
VACUUM
IBM DB2
REORG TABLE table_name
Sybase ASE
REORG REBUILD tabl
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, Álvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2025-Sep-17, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > Concretely, maybe we should remove vacuum full from the vacuum command
> > page, and just call it out as compatibility spelling of repack on its
> > page. Maybe do the same for cluster (I hav
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:01 PM Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
>
>
> Em ter., 16 de set. de 2025 às 13:40, Bruce Momjian
> escreveu:
>>
>> I am starting to get worried about the confusing of adding a REPACK
>> command. We already have a lot of confusion around vacuum and analyze:
>>
>> * autoanalyze d
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Em ter., 16 de set. de 2025 às 23:01, Robert Haas
> escreveu:
>
>> I think RETABLE is not a proposal to be taken seriously. That's
>> extremely confusing.
>>
>
> This feature could be used in a future version to rearrange fields in a
> t
Em ter., 16 de set. de 2025 às 13:40, Bruce Momjian
escreveu:
> I am starting to get worried about the confusing of adding a REPACK
> command. We already have a lot of confusion around vacuum and analyze:
>
> * autoanalyze does vacuum and analyze
> * VACUUM FULL is much different from VACUUM
>
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 7:42 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter E suggested that since we have REINDEX to rewrite indexes, then
> the command to rewrite tables should be RETABLE. I haven't been able to
> get myself to like that idea, and also I think that was a bit
> tongue-in-cheek, but if you lik
Hi,
On 2025-Sep-16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am starting to get worried about the confusing of adding a REPACK
> command. We already have a lot of confusion around vacuum and analyze:
>
> * autoanalyze does vacuum and analyze
> * VACUUM FULL is much different from VACUUM
>
> It seems if we a
I am starting to get worried about the confusing of adding a REPACK
command. We already have a lot of confusion around vacuum and analyze:
* autoanalyze does vacuum and analyze
* VACUUM FULL is much different from VACUUM
It seems if we add REPACK as a command, it is somewhere between VACUUM
FU
35 matches
Mail list logo
