From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> |
Cc: | Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg primary key bug? |
Date: | 2005-02-21 22:51:34 |
Message-ID: | 3293.1109026294@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> writes:
> sorry, but we have the case number 3 in with the same problem.
> Also this time we do not find any linux box crash nor pg stop or restart.
Hmm, well there's *something* mighty curious about the history of this
table. The xmin values span a range of almost 400,000 transactions and
yet the oids are twenty-three consecutive values. Is this the only
table you've inserted into during the last 400K transactions?
It's also odd that there's so much empty space (only 37 rows in 60
pages). It's hard to see how that could be unless there were many
updates on the table, but judging from the name and contents of the
table I can hardly see a reason for lots of updates. How is this table
used exactly? Do you do UPDATEs on it? DELETEs? SELECT FOR UPDATE?
Do you do VACUUM, or VACUUM FULL, or both?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pginfo | 2005-02-22 05:25:37 | Re: pg primary key bug? |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-02-21 20:53:25 | Re: query for records based on date |