From: | Aleksey Tsalolikhin <atsaloli(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A 154 GB table swelled to 527 GB on the Slony slave. How to compact it? |
Date: | 2012-03-08 02:27:13 |
Message-ID: | CA+jMWofRNwh58kWLgwFNbq2O+gUUpGc_+6Ehrzt0Ou3apxgv1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Aleksey Tsalolikhin
<atsaloli(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We're replicating a PostgreSQL 8.4.x database using Slony1-1.2.x
>
> The origin database "data/base" directory is 197 GB in size.
>
> The slave database "data/base" directory is 562 GB in size and is
> over 75% filesystem utilization which has set off the "disk free" siren.
>
> My biggest table* measures 154 GB on the origin, and 533 GB on
> the slave. (*As reported by
>
> SELECT relname as "Table", pg_size_pretty(pg_total_relation_size(relid))
> As "Size" from pg_catalog.pg_statio_user_tables
> ORDER BY pg_total_relation_size(relid) DESC;
> )
I ran VACUUM FULL on this table, but it is still over 500 GB in size.
And growing...
I'm up to 77% utilization on the filesystem.
"check_postgres --action=bloat" now returns OK. So it's not bloat.
What else could it be?
Best,
Aleksey
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2012-03-08 04:12:01 | Re: Re: A 154 GB table swelled to 527 GB on the Slony slave. How to compact it? |
Previous Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2012-03-08 02:11:57 | Re: rounding a timestamp to nearest x seconds |