Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Was it not the case that lazy vacuum had problems freeing tuples that
> have toasted fields ?
News to me if so.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' t
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 14:21, Mark kirkwood wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 01:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Which files grew exactly? (Main table, indexes, toast table, toast index?)
>
> Here a listing (from another run - I dumped and reloaded before getting
> any of that info last time...)
>
>
>
Mark kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Was the FSM size parameter set large enough to cover the amount of space
>> you need the system to be able to recycle --- viz, the amount used
>> between vacuum runs? As with most everything else in PG, the default
>> value is not real large: 1 pag
Mark kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I ran 10 threads in 2) and saw my database grow from the initial size of
> 150M by about 1G per hour (I stopped my test after 5 hours @ 4.5G).
Which files grew exactly? (Main table, indexes, toast table, toast index?)
Was the FSM size parameter set la
There has been a discussion on the general list about this area. One of
the members produced a test case for demonstrating rapid size increase.
I decided to see if I could induce similar behaviour with a more
(seemingly) benign example.
I tried this :
1) Create a table and load 10 rows (wit
