| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jean-Arthur Silve <jeanarthur(at)eurovox(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum analyze infos |
| Date: | 2002-09-10 19:34:29 |
| Message-ID: | 21457.1031686469@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Jean-Arthur Silve <jeanarthur(at)eurovox(dot)fr> writes:
> NOTICE: Pages 7430: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 154392: Vac 6271, Keep 0,
> UnUsed 451218.
> Total CPU 0.05s/0.34u sec elapsed 1.80 sec.
> what is the difference wetween Vac and and unUsed ?
IIRC, "Vac" is the number of tuples freed in this VACUUM pass.
"UnUsed" is the total number of free tuple slots (linepointers) in the
table. I'm not sure if that includes the just-freed ones or not.
> Is unUsed spaces unUsed but not deleted ?
Freed slot pointers are available for re-use later. But the fact that
there are many more free pointers than used pointers (450k vs 155k in
your example) suggests to me that a VACUUM FULL might be appropriate.
If you find that VACUUM FULL reduces the file size (number of pages)
significantly, then you should plan on more frequent regular VACUUMs
and/or increasing the postmaster's FSM parameters to prevent dead
space from accumulating again.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ragnar Kjørstad | 2002-09-10 20:48:30 | Re: fsync or fdatasync |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-10 19:17:00 | Re: fsync or fdatasync |