Please let me know the query to get freepsace associated with all the relations
after installation of pg_freespacemap.
Regards,
Anjali
--- On Wed, 19/12/12, Glyn Astill wrote:
From: Glyn Astill
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum analyze verbose output
To: "Anjali Arora" , &quo
Thanks a lot Glyn.
--- On Wed, 19/12/12, Glyn Astill wrote:
From: Glyn Astill
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum analyze verbose output
To: "Anjali Arora" , "pgsql-general@postgresql.org"
Date: Wednesday, 19 December, 2012, 3:19 PM
> From: Anjali Arora
>To: pgsql-gen
> From: Anjali Arora
>To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 9:14
>Subject: [GENERAL] Vacuum analyze verbose output
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>
>I ran following command on 8.2.2 postgresql:
>
>
> psql -p port dbname -c "vacuum analyze verbose"
>
>
>last few lines from "vacuum
Anjali Arora wrote:
> I ran following command on 8.2.2 postgresql:
> psql -p port dbname -c "vacuum analyze verbose"
> last few lines from "vacuum analyze verbose" output:
>
> DETAIL: A total of 2336 page slots are in use (including overhead).
> 2336 page slots are required to track all free spa
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 05:04:14PM +0100, Marcin Krol wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do you *know* that relpages was up to date before that? If your system
>> only does manual vacuums then those numbers probably reflected reality
>> as of your last vacuum. There are functions that will give you true
Tom Lane wrote:
Do you *know* that relpages was up to date before that? If your system
only does manual vacuums then those numbers probably reflected reality
as of your last vacuum. There are functions that will give you true
file sizes but relpages ain't it.
Oh great. Another catch. What are
Marcin Krol writes:
> The app that created this db is written by me for a change. But I've
> done simple VACUUM ANALYZE on the biggest table in db and got this:
Do you *know* that relpages was up to date before that? If your system
only does manual vacuums then those numbers probably reflected
aderose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Starting with a database where analyze has never been run I get worse
> performance after running it -- is there something I'm missing?
Well, not basing such a sweeping statement on a single query example
would be a good start ;-). This particular plan might
Forgot to mention I'm running (PostgreSQL) 8.2.9
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
"Phoenix Kiula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A vacuum analyze that used to take about 3 minutes on a table of about
> 4 million rows is now taking up to 25 minutes. I changed the
> statistics on two index columns to 100 recently, to improve planner
> estimates. Could this have something to do wit
Sergei Shelukhin escribió:
> * What other non-default configuration settings do you have?
> I played w/shared buffers, setting them between 16k and 32k,~ 24k
> seems to be the best but the difference is minimal. The work_mem
> setting is 256kb, and I increased effective cache size to ~700Mb (~35%
Hi. Sorry for being a bit emotional, I was pretty constructive in my
earlier posts (the earlier, the more constructive if you care to
search) but I am progressively getting pissed off :(
Thanks for the initial tip, running ANALYZE w/o vacuum is faster. Are
frequent vacuums even necessary if there
errr... workmem is 256Mb of course, and 5m for explain analyze costs.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Sergei Shelukhin wrote:
This is my first (and, by the love of the God, last) project w/pgsql
and everything but the simplest selects is so slow I want to cry.
This is especially bad with vacuum analyze - it takes several hours
for a database of mere 15 Gb on a fast double-core server w/2Gb of RAM
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Sergei Shelukhin wrote:
Is there any way to speed up ANALYZE? Without it all the queries run
so slow that I want to cry after a couple of hours of operation and
with it system has to go down for hours per day and that is
unacceptable.
I've found I cry a lot less if I actua
In response to Sergei Shelukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is my first (and, by the love of the God, last) project w/pgsql
One has to ask, are you actually looking for help, or trolling?
If you honestly want help, I would suggest you work on your communication
skills first. If you're a troll,
On Jun 17, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Sergei Shelukhin wrote:
This is my first (and, by the love of the God, last) project w/pgsql
and everything but the simplest selects is so slow I want to cry.
This is especially bad with vacuum analyze - it takes several hours
for a database of mere 15 Gb on a fast do
Sergei Shelukhin escribió:
> The same database running on mysql on basically the same server used
> to run optimize table on every table every half an hour without any
> problem, I am actually pondering scraping half the work on the
> conversion and stuff and going back to mysql but I wonder if th
On Jun 17, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Sergei Shelukhin wrote:
This is my first (and, by the love of the God, last) project w/pgsql
and everything but the simplest selects is so slow I want to cry.
This is especially bad with vacuum analyze - it takes several hours
for a database of mere 15 Gb on a fast
Sergei Shelukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is my first (and, by the love of the God, last) project w/pgsql
> and everything but the simplest selects is so slow I want to cry.
Please post an example query and its EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. The
pgsql-performance mailing list is a good place to
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Sergei Shelukhin <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is my first (and, by the love of the God, last) project w/pgsql
> and everything but the simplest selects is so slow I want to cry.
> This is especially bad with vacuum analyze - it takes several hours
>
Yes, that is true if you have the autovacuum setting enabled for the
database server. You can see the last auto vacuum and last auto analyze
timestamp values from pg_stat_all_tables.
--
Shoaib Mir
EnterpriseDB (www.enterprisedb.com)
On 3/21/07, Robert James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see in
"Robert James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see in all the docs to run VACUUM ANALYZE periodically. My host told me
> that in Postgres 8.2 this is not needed as it is done automatically.
8.2 has an autovacuum feature but it is *not* turned on by default ...
has your host enabled it?
> Is that
On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Never mind.
I found "vacuum_cost_delay" in the docs, I had it set to 70. I set it
to 0 and watched CPU and I/O% peg to 100%.
FWIW, my experience is that if you're going to use that, a number
between 10 and 20 is usually best.
--
Jim Nasb
Never mind.
I found "vacuum_cost_delay" in the docs, I had it set to 70. I set it
to 0 and watched CPU and I/O% peg to 100%.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
Rohit Prakash Khare wrote:
I want to use the following features of PostgreSQL from within VB.NET 2003:
Vacuum, Analyze, ReIndex.
Is there any way to write a VB.NET code to do the following tasks?
Is there some reason why you can't issue SQL with "VACCUM", "ANALYSE"
and "REINDEX"?
--
Rich
Julian Legeny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>PROBLEM IS, that when I start to retrieve records, the performance
> is poor. But when I execute manually (from a DB client) query VACUUM
> ANALYZE one more time (during retrieving of pages), the performance is
> much better.
I don't think this has an
"Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [root@www he_IL]# gdb --core ./base/18729/core
Try mentioning the postgres executable too:
gdb /path/to/postgres /path/to/core
Until you can get us a backtrace that shows some names, not numbers,
there's not a lot we can do.
FWIW, I still
? ()
(gdb)
- Original Message -
From: "Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM ANALYZE
>
> Hmm, unfortunate (was h
You might suffer from a deadlock.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> Hi All
>
> VACUUM ANALYZE;
>
> return me the next error:
>
> pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
> This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
> before or while proce
"Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x4014d8e0 in ?? ()
> #1 0x8123a52 in ?? ()
> #2 0x8123a9f in ?? ()
> #3 0x8123caa in ?? ()
> [ etc ]
Sigh, that's no help at all :-(. Looks like you are using a postgres
executable that's been stripped of all symbolic information
Hmm, unfortunate (was hoping that only the bottom of the trace
was only addresses). Can you turn on --enable-debug (from configure),
recompile, and see if it crashes then and what the trace is from that?
I think that'd be sufficient in general to get routine names (if I'm
wrong, I'm sure Tom wil
.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x4014d8e0 in ?? ()
- Original Message -
From: "Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:17 PM
Subject: Re:
It looks like the backend (I'd assume this one) crashed
with a segmentation fault.
This should leave a core file (I believe in your db data
directory). Can you use a debugger to get a back trace
from the core file?
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> Hi
>
> I use 7.1.2 compiled with
What version are you using, and what does your postgres
log show? There's probably more information there.
- Original Message -
From: "Ben-Nes Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:02 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] VACUUM ANALYZE
> Hi All
>
> VA
I had this problem with 7.0.3, but it cleared up completely with 7.1
W
James Thornton wrote:
>
> Vacuum analyze keeps hanging here...
>
> NOTICE: --Relation referer_log--
> NOTICE: Pages 529: Changed 1, reaped 509, Empty 0, New 0; Tup 24306:
> Vac 43000, Keep/VTL 0/0, Crash 0, UnUsed 0, MinL
Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > No, we have no ability to randomly pick rows to use for
> > > estimating statistics. Should we have this ability?
> >
> > That would be really slick, especially given the fact that VACUUM
> > runs much faster t
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I find it hard to believe that VAC ANALYZE is all that much slower than
>> plain VACUUM anyway; fixing the indexes is the slowest part of VACUUM in
>> my experience. It would be useful to know exactly what the columns are
>> in a table where VAC ANALYZ
> To get a partial VACUUM ANALYZE that was actually usefully faster than
> the current code, I think you'd have to read just a few percent of the
> blocks, which means much less than a few percent of the rows ... unless
> maybe you picked selected blocks but then used all the rows in those
> block
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How's reading a sufficiently large fraction of random rows going to be
>> significantly faster than reading all rows? If you're just going to read
>> the first n rows then that isn't really random, is it?
> Ingres did this too, I thought. You could s
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, we have no ability to randomly pick rows to use for estimating
> statistics. Should we have this ability?
That would be really slick, especially given the fact that VACUUM runs
much faster than VACUUM ANALYZE for a lot of PG users. I could change
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > No, we have no ability to randomly pick rows to use for estimating
> > statistics. Should we have this ability?
>
> How's reading a sufficiently large fraction of random rows going to be
> significantly faster than reading all rows? If you're just going to read
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> No, we have no ability to randomly pick rows to use for estimating
> statistics. Should we have this ability?
How's reading a sufficiently large fraction of random rows going to be
significantly faster than reading all rows? If you're just going to read
the first n rows
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, we have no ability to randomly pick rows to use for estimating
> > statistics. Should we have this ability?
>
> That would be really slick, especially given the fact that VACUUM runs
> much faster than VACUUM ANALYZE for a lot of PG users.
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Hi,
>
> In Oracle, there are 2 ways to do the equivalent of vacuum analyze :
>
> * analyze table xx compute statitics
> * analyze table xx estimate statistics
>
> In the second form, you can tell on what percentage of the file you
> will do yo
TED]>
To: "Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM ANALYZE FAILS on 7.0.3
> * Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010124 09:08] wrote:
> > Tom,
>
* Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010124 09:08] wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Thanks for the hint, and no I wasn't looking in the right place. Here is the
>backtrace
This isn't a backtrace, you need to actually type 'bt' to get a backtrace.
-Alfred
"Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I run VACUUM ANALYZE it fails and all the backend connections are
> closed. Has anyone else run into this problem?
There should be a core dump file from the crashed backend in your
database subdirectory --- can you provide a backtrace from it?
> I would just like to check an assumption. I "vacuum analyze" regularly. I
> have always assumed that this did a plain vacuum in addition to gathering
> statistics. Is this true? The documentation never states explicitly one
> way or the other but it almost suggests that they are independant
"Bryan White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would just like to check an assumption. I "vacuum analyze" regularly. I
> have always assumed that this did a plain vacuum in addition to gathering
> statistics. Is this true?
Yes. There are some poorly-worded places in the docs that make it sound
> Am I the only one who cannot vacuum a named table? (Does it make sense to
> just vacuum a single table?)
>
> regression=> \h vacuum
> Command: VACUUM
> Description: Clean and analyze a Postgres database
> Syntax:
> VACUUM [ VERBOSE ] [ ANALYZE ] [ table ]
> VACUUM [ VERBOSE ] ANALYZE [ table [
51 matches
Mail list logo
