Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Note that while reordering, CLUSTER also gets rid of dead tuples, so if
> > you cluster you don't need to vacuum.
>
> Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
> MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are stil
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that while reordering, CLUSTER also gets rid of dead tuples, so if
> you cluster you don't need to vacuum.
Just for the record, that behavior is seriously broken: it violates
MVCC if any of the deleted tuples are still visible to anyone else.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 07:34:22PM -0500, Michael Avila wrote:
> The table is not empty. I did some playing around with the SQL Statement but
> got no where. So I added a record status column that will be non-NULL when
> the status becomes history because a new status is added. Yeah, I cheated to
>
Martin Marques escribió:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, frank church wrote:
>
> >
> >Does VACUUMing reorder tables on clustered indices or is it only the
> >CLUSTER
> >command that can do that?
>
> Cluster does that. Vacuum only cleans dead tuples from the tables.
Note that while reordering, CLUSTER al
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, frank church wrote:
Does VACUUMing reorder tables on clustered indices or is it only the CLUSTER
command that can do that?
Cluster does that. Vacuum only cleans dead tuples from the tables.
--
18:02:25 up 4 days, 9:57, 5 users, load average: 1.59, 1.57, 1.62
Does VACUUMing reorder tables on clustered indices or is it only the CLUSTER
command that can do that?
/ r church
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---(end of broadcast)
