Jeff Frost <j...@pgexperts.com> writes:
> On 05/24/12 12:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How big is pg_attribute normally in this database? I'm suspicious that
>> what triggered this is some major bloating of pg_attribute (and maybe
>> some of the other catalogs too).
> So, the current working system's pg_attribute looks like:
> select pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('pg_catalog.pg_attribute'));
> pg_size_pretty
> ----------------
> 1671 MB
> (1 row)
> and on the old broken system:
> select pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('pg_catalog.pg_attribute'));
> pg_size_pretty
> ----------------
> 1858 MB
> (1 row)
Huh. A bit bigger, but not by that much. It doesn't seem like this
would be enough to make seqscan performance fall off a cliff, as it
apparently did. Unless maybe the slightly-bloated catalogs were just a
bit too large to fit in RAM, and so the repeated seqscans went from
finding all their data in kernel disk buffers to finding none of it?
> So, interestingly, they're both quite large, but the old broken system is
> quite a bit larger. Any other data points be helpful?
I think it would be interesting to get the pg_relation_size for pg_class
plus pg_attribute plus pg_index (which I think is everything that gets
seqscannedd in this way) on both systems, and see how those numbers
match up to total RAM on the box.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
