| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Schanne <mschanne(at)kns(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unexpected result for wastedbytes query after vacuum full |
| Date: | 2019-12-06 23:28:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20191206232849.GT2082@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 05:18:20PM +0000, Mike Schanne wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This question is somewhat related to my previous question:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0871fcf35ceb4caa8a2204ca9c38e330%40USEPRDEX1.corp.kns.com
>
> I was attempting to measure the benefit of doing a VACUUM FULL on my database. I was using the query found here:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Show_database_bloat
>
> However, I got an unexpected result in that the "wastedbytes" value actually increased for some tables after doing the vacuum.
> I was wondering if the fact that we use a json column could be interfering with the wastedbytes calculation. Can anyone explain how wastedbytes could increase from a vacuum?
Is it due to dropped columns, like Tom explained here ?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18375.1520723971%40sss.pgh.pa.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2019-12-07 00:59:00 | Re: autovacuum locking question |
| Previous Message | Tim Cross | 2019-12-06 22:42:54 | Re: Legal disclaimers on emails to this group |