| From: | Mohamed Wael Khobalatte <mkhobalatte(at)grubhub(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Wenjun Che <wenjun(at)openfin(dot)co> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Question on full vacuum clearing waste space |
| Date: | 2020-06-07 04:31:49 |
| Message-ID: | CABZeWdzy4E0Oy847qLC=YBsL1XshHkyAP24h3Xt06fvBhRJAuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:24 PM Wenjun Che <wenjun(at)openfin(dot)co> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am testing full vacuum with pg 10.10 on AWS RDS. I noticed for some
> tables, the number of waste bytes stays at a few MB after I run full
> vacuum. I double-checked that there are no long running transactions, no
> orphaned prepared transactions and no abandoned replication slots.
>
> Here is output from full vacuum for one of the tables:
>
> VACUUM(FULL, ANALYZE, VERBOSE) app_events_users
> vacuuming "app_events_users"
> "app_events_users": found 0 removable, 1198881 nonremovable row versions
> in 13369 pages
> analyzing "licensing.app_events_users"
> "app_events_users": scanned 13369 of 13369 pages, containing 1198881 live
> rows and 0 dead rows; 30000 rows in sample, 1198881 estimated total rows
>
> What else can prevent full vacuum from reclaiming all waste space ?
>
> Thank you
>
What "waste query" are you running? Those tend to be estimates only. Vacuum
Full clearly did its job from that log you shared.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MichaelDBA | 2020-06-07 11:41:28 | Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH? |
| Previous Message | Wenjun Che | 2020-06-07 03:24:15 | Question on full vacuum clearing waste space |