Hello
I have similar problem with vacuum on 8.1
I have 256M table. pgstattuple reports 128M free. I stopped vacuum
after 1hour (maintenance_work_mem = 160M). I had not more time.
I test it on 8.3 with random data. Vacuum from 190M to 94M neded
30sec. It's much better. It isn't 100% comparable
Hello
I have similar problem with vacuum on 8.1
I have 256M table. pgstattuple reports 128M free. I stopped vacuum
after 1hour (maintenance_work_mem = 160M). I had not more time.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2007/7/10, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On T
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How big is this index again?
> Not sure which one it's working on - there are 6 of them each are ~
> 2.5GB
OK, about 300K pages each ... so even assuming the worst case that
each page requires a phy
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Oh, I forgot to mention --- you did check that vacuum_mem is set to
> >> a pretty high value, no? Else you might be doing a lot more
> >> btbu
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh, I forgot to mention --- you did check that vacuum_mem is set to
>> a pretty high value, no? Else you might be doing a lot more
>> btbulkdelete scans than you need to.
> What would you define as
Oh, I forgot to mention --- you did check that vacuum_mem is set to
a pretty high value, no? Else you might be doing a lot more
btbulkdelete scans than you need to.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh, I forgot to mention --- you did check that vacuum_mem is set to
> a pretty high value, no? Else you might be doing a lot more
> btbulkdelete scans than you need to.
>
> regards, tom lane
What would you define as high
Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scenario - a large table was not being vacuumed correctly, there now ~
> 15 million dead tuples that account for approximately 20%-25% of the
> table. Vacuum appears to be stalling - ran for approximately 10 hours
> before I killed it. I hooked up to t
Version 7.4.12
AIX 5.3
Scenario - a large table was not being vacuumed correctly, there now ~
15 million dead tuples that account for approximately 20%-25% of the
table. Vacuum appears to be stalling - ran for approximately 10 hours
before I killed it. I hooked up to the process with gdb and thi
