| From: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum time degrading |
| Date: | 2005-04-05 16:47:01 |
| Message-ID: | BE782B35.A039%wespvp@syntegra.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 4/5/05 11:15 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I didn't say it wasn't consistent, just that it doesn't prove the
> point. The speedup you saw could have been from elimination of index
> bloat more than from bringing the index into physically sorted order.
> An estimate of the overall database size doesn't really tell us how
> much this particular table's indexes changed in size.
Ok, now I follow. Taking the biggest indexes:
The weekend before:
INFO: index "message_recipients_i_recip_date" now contains 393961361 row
versions in 2435100 pages
INFO: index "message_recipients_i_message" now contains 393934394 row
versions in 1499853 pages
After reindex:
INFO: index "message_recipients_i_recip_date" now contains 401798357 row
versions in 1765613 pages
INFO: index "message_recipients_i_message" now contains 401787237 row
versions in 1322974 pages
Wes
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 16:59:44 | Re: Vacuum time degrading |
| Previous Message | David Rysdam | 2005-04-05 16:41:03 | Check for existence of index |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 16:59:44 | Re: Vacuum time degrading |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 16:15:49 | Re: Vacuum time degrading |