From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David Wilson" <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)ian(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table bloat in 8.3 |
Date: | 2008-11-13 21:50:47 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10811131350w3b7e26aar210df242c99d660f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:09 PM, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM, <pgsql-general(at)ian(dot)org> wrote:
>> I have several tables that when I run VACUUM FULL on, they are under 200k,
>> but after a day of records getting added they grow to 10 to 20 megabytes.
>> They get new inserts and a small number of deletes and updates.
>>
>> seq_scan | 32325
>> seq_tup_read | 39428832
>> idx_scan | 6590219
>> idx_tup_fetch | 7299318
>> n_tup_ins | 2879
>> n_tup_upd | 6829984
>> n_tup_del | 39
>> n_tup_hot_upd | 420634
>> n_live_tup | 2815
>> n_dead_tup | 0
>
> Can you define "small number of deletes and updates"? The stats above
> would disagree with "small". Remember that every update creates a new,
> updated version of the row, which is where the increase is coming
> from.
And don't forget to look into failed inserts. Those too create dead tuples.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | glok_twen | 2008-11-13 22:10:08 | error on vacuum - could not read block |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-11-13 21:47:38 | Re: Tweaking PG (again) |