From: | Patrick Hatcher <PHatcher(at)macys(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | is this index bloat? |
Date: | 2005-02-02 17:58:51 |
Message-ID: | OFBB9AD7E4.AA331175-ON88256F9C.0060B5AA-88256F9C.0062E8DA@fds.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
PG=7.4.5
I guess I never noticed this during vacuum verbose before, but is it common
for the index to be 2 to 3 times the number of rows in a table? I've tried
reindexing and then dropping and readding them. Still the same number of
rows.
Indexes are all btree
mdc_oz=# select count(*) from kst;
count
-------
919
(1 row)
mdc_oz=# vacuum full verbose analyze kst;
INFO: vacuuming "public.kst"
INFO: "kst": found 0 removable, 2757 nonremovable row versions in 64 pages
DETAIL: 1838 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
Nonremovable row versions range from 141 to 235 bytes long.
There were 0 unused item pointers.
Total free space (including removable row versions) is 9112 bytes.
0 pages are or will become empty, including 0 at the end of the table.
8 pages containing 5328 free bytes are potential move destinations.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: index "xie1kst" now contains 2757 row versions in 9 pages
DETAIL: 0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: index "xie2kst" now contains 2757 row versions in 9 pages
DETAIL: 0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: index "kst_dpt_pk" now contains 2757 row versions in 9 pages
DETAIL: 0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: "kst": moved 0 row versions, truncated 64 to 64 pages
DETAIL: CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO: analyzing "public.kst"
INFO: "kst": 64 pages, 919 rows sampled, 919 estimated total rows
VACUUM
# - Free Space Map -
max_fsm_pages = 3000000 # min max_fsm_relations*16, 6 bytes each
max_fsm_relations = 500 # min 100, ~50 bytes each
TIA
Patrick Hatcher
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lonni J Friedman | 2005-02-02 18:17:09 | Re: capturing/viewing sort_mem utilization on a per query basis |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-02 17:58:49 | Re: capturing/viewing sort_mem utilization on a per query basis |