Re: Question about DB VACUUM

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com
Cc: "'Robert Treat'" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about DB VACUUM
Date: 2003-10-07 03:52:39
Message-ID: 20334.1065498759@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

"Chris White \(cjwhite\)" <cjwhite(at)cisco(dot)com> writes:
> Why aren't there any unused tuples?

The "unused" number isn't especially interesting, it's just the number
of line pointer slots that were once used and aren't at the moment.
At 4 bytes apiece, they aren't costing you anything worth noticing.

> Why is the pg_largeobject_loid_pn_index table so big (2818 pages)?

This looks like a standard "index bloat" problem (see the archives
for details). "REINDEX pg_largeobject" would make the bloat go away
for awhile. 7.4 should largely solve this problem, but in earlier
releases you need to figure on periodic reindexing.

> Why has table grown by 4 pages.

Probably because there are now 460 live tuples instead of 227.
I don't think you've entirely fixed your problem of not removing
all unused large objects...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris White (cjwhite) 2003-10-07 04:06:22 Re: Question about DB VACUUM
Previous Message Chris White (cjwhite) 2003-10-07 01:50:13 Re: Question about DB VACUUM