From: | bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Melesky <john(dot)melesky(at)rentrakmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Zero dead tuples, when significant apparent bloat |
Date: | 2013-12-11 01:57:24 |
Message-ID: | CAGrpgQ-m=HVB66fDynRWqKE5h4awPaJUT3srg3mQFG5LdWZgog@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, John Melesky
<john(dot)melesky(at)rentrakmail(dot)com>wrote:
> It seems clear that there were dead tuples, since the table size shrank to
> an eighth of its previous size. Why did analyze not pick that up?
> Am I missing something?
> This is a very large database, so we want to introspect against live/dead
> tuple percentage to minimize the tables we run a VACUUM FULL against.
>
If you willing to install the pgstattuple[1] extension, what does the
output say? Note, there is some overhead on larger tables (disk I/O
primarily)
select * from pgstattuple('your table');
Also, check the output from bloat query at
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Show_database_bloat
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/pgstattuple.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-11 02:05:42 | Re: Zero dead tuples, when significant apparent bloat |
Previous Message | John Melesky | 2013-12-11 01:05:26 | Zero dead tuples, when significant apparent bloat |