pg_* files are too large for empty database.

From: Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: pg_* files are too large for empty database.
Date: 2000-05-29 10:56:13
Message-ID: 0005291635420M.06045@dyp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello all,

today I've started to change the structure of one of my databases and
removed everything from it. Created new tables, come through database with
vacuumlo, say vacuum; vacuum analyze; I expected that I will have quite small
disk space occupied after this... And the result was a surprise...

Indices became VERY large even when table is empty!!!
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 0 May 29 14:25 inbox
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 3162112 May 29 14:25 inbox_id_key

And lots of pg_* indices are incredibly large. Like:

-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 90112 May 29 16:27 pg_attribute
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 37920768 May 29 16:26 pg_attribute_relid_attnam_index
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 15671296 May 29 16:26 pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16384 May 29 16:27 pg_class
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 4136960 May 29 16:26 pg_class_oid_index
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 10846208 May 29 16:26 pg_class_relname_index

I know that I had quite big (>30000) amount of BLOBs.But there're only 5 of them inside now.
And this is what registered in pg_class.
Looks like bug in vacuum... Or I missed something?

BTW, Postgresql 7.0, Linux 2.2.15.

--
Sincerely Yours,
Denis Perchine

----------------------------------
E-Mail: dyp(at)perchine(dot)com
HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/
FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5
----------------------------------

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Olivier PRENANT 2000-05-29 12:27:53 Timestamp data type problems
Previous Message Kovacs Zoltan 2000-05-29 09:19:11 Re: ODBC patch