From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Alfred Perlstein'" <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | RE: Index grows huge, possible leakage? |
Date: | 2001-02-02 18:38:19 |
Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32D9@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> After several weeks our idicies grow very large (in one case to
> 4-5 gigabytes) After droppping and recreating the indecies they
> shrink back to something more reasonable (500megs same case).
>
> We are currently using Vadim's vacuum patches for VLAZY and MMNB,
> against 7.0.3. We are using a LAZY vacuum on these tables
>
> However a normal (non-lazy) vacuum doesn't shrink the index, the
> only thing that helps reduce the size is dropping and recreating.
>
> Is this a bug in 7.0.3? A possible bug in Vadim's patches? Or is
> this somewhat expected behavior that we have to cope with?
When index is created its pages are filled in full => any insert
into such pages results in page split - ie in additional page.
So, it's very easy to get 4Gb from 500Mb.
Vacuum was never able to shrink indices - it just removes dead index
tuples and so allows to re-use space ... if you'll insert the same
keys.
To know does VLAZY work properly or not I would need in vacuum debug
messages. Did you run vacuum with verbose option or do you have
postmaster' logs? With LAZY vacuum writes messages like
Index _name_: deleted XXX unfound YYY
YYY supposed to be 0...
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fred Yankowski | 2001-02-02 19:25:02 | best windows ODBC driver for HEAD CVS version? |
Previous Message | Ian Lance Taylor | 2001-02-02 18:22:55 | Patch to add cursor support to PL/pgSQL |