On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM, bricklen wrote:
> If you willing to install the pgstattuple[1] extension, what does the
> output say? Note, there is some overhead on larger tables (disk I/O
> primarily)
>
Yeah, this is a prod database that sees nontrivial traffic, so I'm not yet
ready to instal
John Melesky writes:
> It seems clear that there were dead tuples, since the table size shrank to
> an eighth of its previous size. Why did analyze not pick that up?
Dead tuples and empty space are not the same thing.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, John Melesky
wrote:
> It seems clear that there were dead tuples, since the table size shrank to
> an eighth of its previous size. Why did analyze not pick that up?
> Am I missing something?
> This is a very large database, so we want to introspect against live/dea
Here's the situation:
relation_size | indexes_size | total_relation_size
++-
997 MB | 2073 MB| 3070 MB
(1 row)
If I select n_dead_tup from pg_stat_user_tables, I get:
n_dead_tup
0
Okay, so I run ANA
