Re: autovacuum worker running amok - and me too ;)

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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 ;)