On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Alvaro
Herrera<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> > But trying to VACUUM FULL that table is going to be horridly painful
>> > too, and you'll still have bloated indexes afterwards. You might as
>> > well just live with the 50% waste, especially since if you did a
>> > full-table update once you'll probably do it again sometime.
>> >
>> > I'm having a hard time believing that VACUUM FULL really has any
>> > interesting use-case anymore.
>>
>> What if your large table doesn't have an index? Then there's no way to cluster.
>
> But there's nothing saying we cannot provide a version of CLUSTER that
> does not follow any index and just copies the live tuples.
Agreed.
...Robert