Re: db grows and grows

Perhaps your script or one that grabs the information internally should
be added to the contrib section as well?

Robert Treat

On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 20:27, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:33:28PM -0400, terry(at)greatgulfhomes(dot)com wrote:
> > Down side of DROP/CREATE is your shrinking script has to know the exact code
> > to recreate the index, which is an issue if your database is evolving,
> > you'll have to keep updating the script as you add tables/indexes.
>
> My script-that-makes-the-script used pg_dump to get the appropriate
> statement. As someone pointed out, it is also stored in plain text within
> the database.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Robert Treat
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 3:58 PM
> > > To: Bruce Momjian
> > > Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] db grows and grows
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 11:40, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Bjoern Metzdorf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the problem is that we don't have a plan on how to fix the
> > > > index growth problem right now, so if people want to prevent index
> > > > growth, reindex is the only solution.
> > > >
> > > > The TODO item says:
> > > >
> > > > * Certain indexes will not shrink, e.g. indexes on
> > > ever-increasing
> > > > columns and indexes with many duplicate keys
> > > >
> > > > but in fact that wording is misleading. >80% of index are on
> > > > ever-increasing columns, so it isn't really 'certain index' but more
> > > > accurately 'most indexes'.
> > > >
> > > > I am planning to add the reindex script to /contrib,
> > > document its need
> > > > in the maintenance docs, and add an FAQ item. If it gets
> > > fixed in 7.3,
> > > > great. If not, we will have communicated to users and
> > > given them the
> > > > tools then need.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Would you say the reindex command/script is the recommended way of
> > > dealing with the issue, rather than the create/rename method some have
> > > suggested? Or maybe the difference is negligible? Does either method
> > > have an upside in regards to the query planner statistics
> > > generated via
> > > routine vacuum analyzes?
> > >
> > > Robert Treat
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
> --
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> > There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary
> > arithmetic and those that can't.