Received: from trends.net (root@clio.trends.ca [209.47.148.2]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02408; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:01:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kdebisschop@spaceheater.infoplease.com) Received: from spaceheater.infoplease.com ([208.222.166.15]) by trends.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09626; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from skillet.infoplease.com (skillet [208.222.166.212]) by spaceheater.infoplease.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14921; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kdebisschop@localhost) by skillet.infoplease.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA00633; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:17:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:17:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199904201317.JAA00633@skillet.infoplease.com> X-Authentication-Warning: skillet.infoplease.com: kdebisschop set sender to kdebisschop@spaceheater.infoplease.com using -f From: Karl DeBisschop To: jt-kirkpatrick@mpsllc.com CC: pgsql-admin@hub.org, pgsql-sql@hub.org, pgsql-general@hub.org, pgsql-interfaces@hub.org In-reply-to: <01BE8A7D.00789480.jt-kirkpatrick@mpsllc.com> (message from JT Kirkpatrick on Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:24:16 -0400) Subject: Re: [GENERAL] problem when vacuuming. . . Reply-to: kdebisschop@spaceheater.infoplease.com References: <01BE8A7D.00789480.jt-kirkpatrick@mpsllc.com> For what it's worth, my experience with this error is that your backend crashed during the update - why it should do that on such a small set of data, I cannot begin to guess. But I have always found the data to be okay, though the query executing at the time will need to be completed. Just drop the indexes, complete the query, and recreate the indexes (I suggets this order for performance reasons, unless your update depends on using the indexes to perform efficiently). You may also want to increase the amount of memory allocated to the backend, both -B and -S (buffers, and sort buffers) From: JT Kirkpatrick Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:24:16 -0400 Organization: MPS, LLC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org Precedence: bulk When I vacuum I get two messages: NOTICE: Index pg_class_relname_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (108) IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (82) NOTICE: Index pg_class_oid_index: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (108) IS NOT THE SAME AS HEAP' (82) I had followed some advice I read in one of these postgres mailing lists (from this weekend) regarding case problems when transferring from access97, and I executed both of those updates. I can't find them now, nor can I remember them, but they replaced certain values in the tables corresponding to the indexes above with the lowercase equivalent of those values. I'd like to try to reverse the effect - does anyone have a copy of that email from sometime this weekend? jt -- Karl DeBisschop 617.832.0332 (Fax: 617.956.2696) Information Please - your source for FREE online reference http://www.infoplease.com - Your Ultimate Fact Finder http://kids.infoplease.com - The Great Homework Helper