From: | wambacher <wnordmann(at)gmx(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum worker running amok - and me too ;) |
Date: | 2015-03-04 17:16:51 |
Message-ID: | 1425489411849-5840485.post@n5.nabble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Paul Ramsey wrote
> Though maybe with a really big table? (with really big
> objects?) Though still, doesn't analyze just pull a limited sample
> (30K approx max) so why would table size make any difference after a
> certain point?
Hi paul, "my" table is quite big (about 293.049.000 records) but the objects
are not.
nodes[] contains maximal 2000 bigint and tags[] up to some hundred chars,
sometimes some thousands chars.
watching the memory usage of the autovaccum process: is was getting bigger
and bigger at nearly constant speed. some MB per minute, iir.
i'm just recreating planet_osm_ways_nodes without "fastupdate=off"
regards
walter
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/autovacuum-worker-running-amok-and-me-too-tp5840299p5840485.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Ramsey | 2015-03-04 19:53:41 | Re: Postgres not using GiST index in a lateral join |
Previous Message | Paul Ramsey | 2015-03-04 16:48:53 | Re: autovacuum worker running amok - and me too ;) |