From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes |
Date: | 2011-04-28 20:01:59 |
Message-ID: | 2755.1304020919@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> I'm currently looking at a database which has some extreme bloating of
> intarray GiST indexes. As in 1000% bloating in only a few months. This
> is not a particularly high-transaction-rate database, so the bloating is
> a little surprising; I can only explain it if vacuum wasn't cleaning the
> indexes at all, and maybe not even then.
> We're currently instrumenting the database so that we can collect a bit
> more data on update activity, but in the meantime, has anyone seen
> anything like this?
1. What PG version?
2. If new enough to have contrib/pgstattuple, what does pgstattuple()
have to say about the index?
I'm suspicious that this might be bloat caused by a bad picksplit function,
not from having a lot of dead entries in the index. We've fixed several
other bogus picksplit functions in contrib in the past.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-04-28 20:05:19 | Re: pgsql: Fix pg_size_pretty() to avoid overflow for inputs close to INT64 |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2011-04-28 19:57:14 | Re: pgsql: Fix pg_size_pretty() to avoid overflow for inputs close to INT64 |