Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Steve Crawford" <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
Cc: "Peter Kovacs" <maxottovonstirlitz(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?
Date: 2008-09-29 17:26:22
Message-ID: dcc563d10809291026h6d01e20cv1afcffd8aec332c5@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Steve Crawford
<scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> What it sounds like to me is that you're not vacuuming the system
>>> catalogs, which are getting bloated with dead rows about all those
>>> dropped tables.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, great!
>>
>> It is not immediately clear from the documentation, but the VACUUM
>> command also deals with the system catalogs as well, correct?
>>
>>
>
> To expand on Tom's answer, rows in system tables are created not only for
> tables but for each column in the table, rules, indexes, etc. You  can end
> up with a lot more row creation than you suspect. And temporary tables bloat
> the system tables just like regular tables. We discovered that cron scripts
> using temporary tables can cause very rapid system-table blotage.

Also, there was a time when you couldn't do vacuum full on system
tables do to locking issues, and had to take the db down to single
user mode to do so.

Tom, is that still the case?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Ing. Jorge S AlanĂ­s GarzaDate: 2008-09-29 17:43:54
Subject: PID file
Previous:From: Steve CrawfordDate: 2008-09-29 17:12:53
Subject: Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group