From: | "XuYifeng" <jamexu(at)telekbird(dot)com(dot)cn> |
---|---|
To: | "Alfred Perlstein" <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Subject: | Re: Index grows huge, possible leakage? |
Date: | 2001-02-02 03:04:10 |
Message-ID: | 000b01c08cc4$d3c007b0$6201a8c0@William |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
PostgreSQL hasn't a rewritten storage managent, this is a normal case.
Regards
XuYifeng
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:34 AM
Subject: [HACKERS] Index grows huge, possible leakage?
> After several weeks our idicies grow very large (in one case to
> 4-5 gigabytes) After droppping and recreating the indecies they
> shrink back to something more reasonable (500megs same case).
>
> We are currently using Vadim's vacuum patches for VLAZY and MMNB,
> against 7.0.3. We are using a LAZY vacuum on these tables
>
> However a normal (non-lazy) vacuum doesn't shrink the index, the
> only thing that helps reduce the size is dropping and recreating.
>
> Is this a bug in 7.0.3? A possible bug in Vadim's patches? Or is
> this somewhat expected behavior that we have to cope with?
>
> As a side note, the space requirement is actually 'ok' it's just
> that performance gets terrible once the indecies reach such huge
> sizes.
>
> --
> -Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
> "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ryan Kirkpatrick | 2001-02-02 03:29:18 | Re: A Sparc/Linux patch (for 7.1), and a Linux rc.d/init.dscript.... |
Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2001-02-01 23:34:26 | Index grows huge, possible leakage? |