Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No. You'd be better off using REINDEX for that, I think.
> I guess my point is that if you forget to run regular vacuum for a
> month, then realize the problem, you can just do a VACUUM FULL and the
> heap is back to a perfect state as if you had been running regular
> vacuum all along. That is not true of indexes. It would be nice if it
> would.
A VACUUM FULL that invoked REINDEX would accomplish that *better* than
one that didn't, because of the problem of duplicate entries for moved
tuples. See my response just now to Alvaro.
regards, tom lane