Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1452E2D42 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:46:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15988-04 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:46:20 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.trinitydigital.com.au (mail.trinitydigital.com.au [202.134.38.99]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B655B2E2D3C for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:46:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (unknown [202.134.38.101]) by mail.trinitydigital.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE75B8EEE; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:45:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail.trinitydigital.com.au ([202.134.38.99]) by localhost (spam-filter.trinitydigital.com.au [202.134.38.101]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22561-01-38; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:44:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [172.17.73.18] (C-61-68-184-7.bur.connect.net.au [61.68.184.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.trinitydigital.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A0B8DC7; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:44:57 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <473B6C9D.1020804@pws.com.au> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:46:05 +1100 From: Russell Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-David Beyer CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Curious about dead rows. References: <4735DBDB.5050208@verizon.net> <16627.1194714491@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4735FA9F.1080805@verizon.net> <473A5CC0.3060003@verizon.net> <473AE63D.7090305@verizon.net> <20071114152249.GA16041@crankycanuck.ca> <473B2A1F.30804@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <473B2A1F.30804@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Trinity Digital Spam Filter X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/221 X-Sequence-Number: 27636 Jean-David Beyer wrote: > [snip] > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: analyzing "public.vl_in" > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: "vl_in": scanned 2001 of 2001 pages, > containing 183983 live rows and 52 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 183983 > estimated total rows > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: analyzing "public.vl_cf" > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: "vl_cf": scanned 1064 of 1064 pages, > containing 134952 live rows and 89 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 134952 > estimated total rows > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: analyzing "public.vl_as" > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: "vl_as": scanned 1732 of 1732 pages, > containing 134952 live rows and 120 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 134952 > estimated total rows > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: analyzing "public.vl_ranks" > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: "vl_ranks": scanned 1485 of 1485 pages, > containing 188415 live rows and 162 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 188415 > estimated total rows > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: analyzing "public.vl_mi" > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: "vl_mi": scanned 1325 of 1325 pages, > containing 134952 live rows and 191 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 134952 > estimated total rows > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: analyzing "public.vl_li" > 2007-11-14 12:00:31 EST DEBUG: "vl_li": scanned 1326 of 1326 pages, > containing 134952 live rows and 218 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 134952 > estimated total rows > What does vacuum verbose have to say about this situation? It is possible that analyze is not getting the number of dead rows right? Does analyze, followed by vacuum verbose give the same dead row counts? Sorry for lots of questions, I'm just throwing ideas into the mix. Russell. >