Re: Cluster and vacuum performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: "Shea,Dan [CIS]" <Dan(dot)Shea(at)ec(dot)gc(dot)ca>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cluster and vacuum performance
Date: 2004-03-09 23:30:52
Message-ID: 29780.1078875052@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> INFO: vacuuming "public.forecastelement"
>> INFO: "forecastelement": found 93351479 removable, 219177133 nonremovable

> The high number of nonremovable above probably indicates that you have a
> transaction being held open which prevents VACUUM from being effective.

You misread it --- "nonremovable" doesn't mean "dead but not removable",
it just means "not removable". Actually the next line of his log showed
there were zero nonremovable dead tuples, so he's not got any
open-transaction problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-10 00:07:17 Re: Delete performance on delete from table with inherited tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-09 22:57:36 Re: Cluster and vacuum performance