Pavel,
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:22 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> po 8. 4. 2019 v 7:57 odesÃlatel Igal Sapir <i...@lucee.org> napsal:
>
>> 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).
>>
>
> you can drop some indexes, then you can run vacuum full, and create
> dropped indexes again.
>
The table does not have any indexes. It is mostly an append-only table.
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> it say, so your table can be reduced about 60%
>
That's what I thought, and releasing 65% of 84GB would be major here, but
unfortunately I am unable to release it because VACUUM FULL requires more
space than I currently have available.
Perhaps disabling the WAL, if possible, could help VACUUM FULL complete.
Or some way to do an in-place VACUUM so that it doesn't write all the data
to a new table.
Thank you,
Igal
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
