From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Something Weird Going on with VACUUM ANALYZE |
Date: | 2013-09-18 16:15:37 |
Message-ID: | 5239D1A9.7050709@optionshouse.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 09/18/2013 02:32 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> What happens if you run VACUUM (VERBOSE, ANALYZE) manually?
> Are the statistics updated?
> Are there any warnings?
It looks like running it manually worked fine, but I only ran it on
specific tables that showed up in the list of un-analyzed.
I see no errors, no warnings, no problems of any kind in the verbose log
I save every day. According to the database, everything is fine.
> No idea about this.
> Is there a lot of load on the system?
According to sar, it's a desert. There's a ton of disk IO caused by the
VACUUM ANALYZE, but that's it. The IO map is... very odd, though. It
looks like the vacuum IO didn't start until 3:20 instead of 3:00,
possibly because some lock was preventing it from starting. That might
explain that delay from the log, but not the fact it vacuumed for 17
minutes and neglected to analyze, instead of 55 minutes while doing both.
Logs show no unexpected or unusual behavior, either. And of course, the
vacuumdb ran fine this morning. If it comes up again, I'll dig further,
but I can't find any reason why our database stopped analyzing itself
for four days.
Thanks for the attempt though. :)
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2013-09-18 16:20:06 | Re: nested partitioning |
Previous Message | Gabriel E. Sánchez Martínez | 2013-09-18 16:05:40 | Re: nested partitioning |