From: | Litao Wu <litaowu(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: reltuples after vacuum and analyze |
Date: | 2005-01-25 18:41:16 |
Message-ID: | 20050125184116.1348.qmail@web30303.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I know it is accurate.
My question is why the table takes
2023024KB after analyzed?
And why it does not shink to 30088 after vacuumed?
I know "vacuum full verbose"
will force it shrink to
reasonable size. But I do not understand
why "analyze" bloats the table size so
big??
Please note all above commands are done within
minutes and I truely do not believe the table
of 189165 rows takes that much space.
Furthermore, I notice last weekly "vacuum full"
even did not reclaim the space back.
Thanks,
--- Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Litao Wu <litaowu(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Then how to explain relpages
> > (size_kb in result returned)?
>
> relpages should be accurate in either case, since we
> get that by asking
> the kernel (lseek).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-25 18:43:51 | Re: reltuples after vacuum and analyze |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-25 18:33:06 | Re: reltuples after vacuum and analyze |