From: Charles.Hou <ivan.hou@msa.hinet.net>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the right time to vacuum database?
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:29:55 -0700
Message-ID: <1181309395.707448.201490@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070607174639.GG14087@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <1181039589.643323.59660@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
<20070605132546.GI4818@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
<1181089690.963738.260660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
<20070606195101.GF11545@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
<1181200023.281625.249120@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
<20070607174639.GG14087@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
On Jun 8, 1:46 am, a...@crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:07:03AM -0700, Charles.Hou wrote:
> > i use the VACUUM VERBOSE a table , but it had been hold 10 minutes . i
> > must use the linux command " kill " to exit the VACUUM.
> > after i kill this PID, the PostgreSql have been restart
> > automatically.
>
> Maybe it was doing work. Why did you kill it? If there is a problem
> on that table, I wouldn't be surprised that it'd take 10 minutes.
> You just caused all the work it started to do to be undone, and to
> cause more bloat. But. . .
>
> > DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
>
> . . . this suggests you don't have bloat on that table at least. So
> it sounds to me like your disk use is going up because you have a lot
> of data.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan | a...@crankycanuck.ca
> In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
> garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
> --Brad Holland
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majord...@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
i have traced the size of the table. About 1000 new rows will be
inserted into the table in one day. each row has 300 bytes.
1000*300/1024=293K, but the size of this table had been increased 3MB.
3MB-293K=2.7MB...Why?where is the 2.7MB?
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: ivan.hou@msa.hinet.net, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the right time to vacuum database?
In-Reply-To: <1181309395.707448.201490@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox