From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | AP <pgsql(at)inml(dot)weebeastie(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 10.1: hash index size exploding on vacuum full analyze |
Date: | 2017-11-16 05:06:39 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+NVZ1=U01AMB3dq=Sk1Ur6OLTnSUYehxyZP-j+_1HefQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:32 AM, AP <pgsql(at)inml(dot)weebeastie(dot)net> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 09:48:13AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Sounds quite strange. I think during vacuum it leads to more number
>> of splits than when the original data was loaded. By any chance do
>> you have a copy of both the indexes (before vacuum full and after
>> vacuum full)? Can you once check and share the output of
>> pgstattuple-->pgstathashindex() and pageinspect->hash_metapage_info()?
>> I wanted to confirm if the bloat is due to additional splits.
>
> For the latter is this correct?
>
> select * from hash_metapage_info(get_raw_page('exploding_index', 0))\gx
>
I think it should work, but please refer documentation [1] for exact usage.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/pageinspect.html#idm191242
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | AP | 2017-11-16 05:11:27 | Re: 10.1: hash index size exploding on vacuum full analyze |
Previous Message | AP | 2017-11-16 05:02:03 | Re: 10.1: hash index size exploding on vacuum full analyze |