Re: [doc patch] a slight VACUUM / VACUUM FULL doc improvement proposal

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:43:50PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>patch - basically, I think the documentation under estimates (or
>sometimes misses) the benefit of VACUUM FULL for scans, and the
>needs of VACUUM FULL if the routine VACUUM hasn't been done
>properly since the database was put in production.

It's also possible to overestimate the benefit of vacuum full, leading
to people vacuum full'ing almost constantly, then complaining about
performance due to the associated overhead. I think there have been more
people on this list whose performance problems were caused by
unnecessary full vacs than by those whose performance problems were
caused by insufficient full vacs.

Mike Stone