Re: [GENERAL] Getting an out of memory failure.... (long email)

2004-09-28 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Sean Shanny wrote: Tom, The Analyze did in fact fix the issue. Thanks. --sean Given the fact that you are using pg_autovacuum, you have to consider a few points: 1) Is out there a buggy version that will not analyze big tables. 2) The autovacuum fail in scenarios with big tables not eavy updated,

Re: [GENERAL] Getting an out of memory failure.... (long email)

2004-09-28 Thread Sean Shanny
Tom, The Analyze did in fact fix the issue. Thanks. --sean On 9/27/04 11:54 PM, "Sean Shanny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom, > > We have been running pg_autovacuum on this entire DB so I did not even > consider that. I am running an analyze verbose now. > > We should see about 82mm rows

Re: [GENERAL] Getting an out of memory failure.... (long email)

2004-09-27 Thread Sean Shanny
Tom, We have been running pg_autovacuum on this entire DB so I did not even consider that. I am running an analyze verbose now. We should see about 82mm rows that will match the Filter: ((date_key >= 610) AND (date_key <= 631)) I'll update in an hour or so. --sean On 9/27/04 11:49 PM, "Tom L

Re: [GENERAL] Getting an out of memory failure.... (long email)

2004-09-27 Thread Tom Lane
Sean Shanny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > -> Seq Scan on f_pageviews t1 (cost=0.00..11762857.88 > rows=1 width=8) > Filter: ((date_key >= 610) AND (date_key <= 631)) How many rows are actually going to match that filter condition? (The symptoms seem