| From: | "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bloated pg_shdepend_depender_index |
| Date: | 2006-03-24 03:58:11 |
| Message-ID: | e692861c0603231958m11472300gb1c32cf0e998a3cd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 3/23/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > amarokcollection=# select relname, pg_relation_size(oid) FROM
> > pg_class ORDER BY 2 DESC LIMIT 20;
> > relname | pg_relation_size
> > ---------------------------------+------------------
> > pg_attribute_relid_attnam_index | 2881069056
> > pg_class_relname_nsp_index | 1185890304
>
> That's in a different database --- evidently, the one where a *whole*
> lotta temp tables have been created and dropped. If you haven't been
> doing any vacuuming then system catalog bloat is to be expected.
Oh sure enough it is.. I'm glad I copied the prompt. :)
So it's by design that these now bloated index won't shrink if let
unvacuumed? I didn't expect to hit something like that.
Okay, so long as it wasn't a bug. I've reindexed the system tables
now. The database is now 6mb on disk.. a big improvement from 6gb. :)
Thanks.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-24 04:48:18 | Re: Bloated pg_shdepend_depender_index |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-24 03:24:12 | Re: Bloated pg_shdepend_depender_index |