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
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 |