David,
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 8:11 PM David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 14:57, Igal Sapir <i...@lucee.org> wrote:
> > However, I have now deleted about 50,000 rows more and the table has
> only 119,688 rows. The pg_relation_size() still shows 31MB and
> pg_total_relation_size() still shows 84GB.
> >
> > It doesn't make sense that after deleting about 30% of the rows the
> values here do not change.
>
> deleting rows does not make the table any smaller, it just creates
> dead rows in the table. VACUUM tries to release the space used by
> those dead rows and turns it back into free space. Normal vacuum (not
> FULL) can only shrink the table if completely empty pages are found at
> the end of the table.
>
ACK
>
> > Attempting to copy the data to a different table results in the out of
> disk error as well, so that is in line with your assessment. But it
> actually just shows the problem. The new table to which the data was
> copied (though failed due to out of disk) shows 0 rows, but
> pg_total_relation_size() for that table shows 27GB. So now I have an
> "empty" table that takes 27GB of disk space.
>
> I think the best thing to do is perform a normal VACUUM on the table
>
Running VACUUM on the newly created table cleared the 27GB so that's good
(I was planning to run normal VACUUM but ran FULL).
> then CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgstattuple; then do; SELECT *
> FROM pgstattuple('<tablename>); and the same again on the toast table.
> If your table still contains many dead rows then perhaps an open
> transaction is stopping rows from being turned into free space.
I am not sure how to read the below. I see a lot of "free_space" but not
"dead":
-[ RECORD 1 ]------+------------
?column? | primary
table_len | 32055296
tuple_count | 120764
tuple_len | 9470882
tuple_percent | 29.55
dead_tuple_count | 0
dead_tuple_len | 0
dead_tuple_percent | 0
free_space | 20713580
free_percent | 64.62
-[ RECORD 2 ]------+------------
?column? | toast
table_len | 88802156544
tuple_count | 15126830
tuple_len | 30658625743
tuple_percent | 34.52
dead_tuple_count | 0
dead_tuple_len | 0
dead_tuple_percent | 0
free_space | 57653329312
free_percent | 64.92
> Once pgstattuples reports that "tuple_len" from the table, its toast table
> and all its indexes has been reduced to an acceptable value then you
> should try a VACUUM FULL. Remember that VACUUM FULL must also write
> WAL, so if WAL is on the same volume, then you'll need to consider
> space required for that when deciding how much data to remove from the
> table.
>
WAL is on the same volume. The PGDATA directory is mounted in a Docker
container.
Isn't there any way to do an in-place VACUUM or pause the WAL at the risk
of losing some data if recovery is required?
There is a catch-22 here. I can't reclaim the disk space because that
requires disk space. Surely I'm not the first one to have encountered that
problem with Postgres.
>
> > This is mostly transient data, so I don't mind deleting rows, but if
> some day this could happen in production then I have to know how to deal
> with it without losing all of the data.
>
> For the future, it would be better to delete more often than waiting
> until the table grows too large. A normal VACUUM will turn space used
> by dead tuples back into free space, so if done often enough there
> won't be a need to vacuum full.
>
ACK. This issue came up while implementing a retention policy that will be
enforced regularly.
Thank you for all of your help,
Igal
