I'm facing performance degradation and increasing storage usage as a result of frequent new and updated records causing index and storage fragmentation.

VACUUM doesn't help much.

Unfortunetely CLUSTER isn't an option as it causes downtime and pg_repack isn't available for AWS RDS.

I'm looking for hacky alternatives to CLUSTER. One that seems to work fine in my local tests is:


create temp table tmp_target as select * from target;

delete from target;
insert into target select * from tmp_target order by field1 asc, field2 desc;

drop table tmp_target;


The ordering of ctid looks correct with:

select ctid, field1, field2 from target order by ctid;

The question is: does this look fine? Is it going to lock the target table for SELECT queries causing downtime in apps? Is there a way to list the locks involved in the transaction?

Related to Cluster command locking read only queries on replica

  • (Auto)vacuum is here to help. Is autovacuum configured and how ? You can also tune it per table (just like analyze) which might be useful for your most active tables. Please try those gentle methods first before. By the way, you could use TRUNCATE in your script, but would advise you against re-inventing the wheel. May 26 '17 at 12:36
  • @KookieMonster please reread the first and second lines
    – brauliobo
    Jul 3 '17 at 20:21

If it's just about table bloat, VACUUM FULL is the tool to do it. (VACUUM only shrinks the physical file if it can opportunistically truncate it at the end.) However, VACUUM FULL also takes an exclusive lock on the table, just like CLUSTER.

To do the same without exclusive lock pg_repack is the tool you are looking for. It's unfortunate that Amazon does not seem to allow it.

Manual solutions introduce all sorts of corner cases and race conditions. You would need to specify your table and possible access patterns exactly before we can discuss the best solution.

Your current solution is no good either way. You do the sort operation after deleting all rows (locking them), which will not shorten the downtime (the duration of the lock) for SELECT queries.

If you have no concurrent write access and no depending objects, this might be better:


CREATE TEMP TABLE tmp_target AS TABLE target ORDER BY field1, field2 DESC;

TRUNCATE target;
INSERT INTO target TABLE tmp_target;

-- DROP TABLE tmp_target;  -- optional; dropped at end of session automatically

  1. Sort in the background before taking the lock.
    Strictly speaking, INSERT without ORDER BY is free to write rows in any physical order. Practically, though, it will copy the current physical order of the temp table with a plain SELECT * FROM (or TABLE for short).

  2. Use TRUNCATE instead of DELETE, which is faster for big tables. Be aware of some implications like TRUNCATE does not work with FK constraints. Read the manual for full coverage.

You may want to drop existing indexes right before TRUNCATE and recreate after INSERT to make this faster.


  • thanks @Erwin. It seems to work fine, the only thing necessary is to remove all FKs before and readd them after. Is there a simple way to do this?
    – brauliobo
    May 26 '17 at 21:13
  • another thing, how to lock a table only for writing? or isn't it necessary for this transaction?
    – brauliobo
    May 26 '17 at 21:20
  • this answer my first question stackoverflow.com/questions/1152260/… (using ccu instead of tc in the where)
    – brauliobo
    May 26 '17 at 21:31
  • @vao thanks for pointing out! fixed. May 7 '19 at 11:23
  • @ErwinBrandstetter my pleasure. You helped me a lot with your SO posts
    – Vao Tsun
    May 7 '19 at 11:28

pg_repack is available on RDS now.

  • pg_repack uses a lot of storage and is very disk and CPU intensive, so I gave up using it
    – brauliobo
    Dec 18 '18 at 13:15
  • What did you end up using?
    – timetofly
    Dec 19 '18 at 15:14
  • nothing :( still with fragmented data
    – brauliobo
    Dec 21 '18 at 12:00
  • 1
    Just to note, a VACUUM FULL or CLUSTER is just as resource-intensive. All solutions build a copy of the table (and indexes). With pg_repack you pay some extra price for not being down during (most of) the time, but in my experience it's not that bad.
    – dezso
    May 7 '19 at 12:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.