Re: Question about DB VACUUM
От | Chris White (cjwhite) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Question about DB VACUUM |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 001c01c3893e$871dca40$5c976b80@amer.cisco.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Question about DB VACUUM (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Question about DB VACUUM
|
Список | pgsql-admin |
Tom, You were right, 1 or 2 of the large objects weren't actually getting removed from the table, each cycle. I wasn't running on a completely empty database when I first started, so I didn't notice the undeleted objects. The program which interfaces to the database uses the JDBC method LargeObject.delete() to delete the large object associated to the entry in the users data table. Plus every night I have a program which goes through the database and checks for and removes large objects which are no longer being referenced by any table. I am now trying to find out why the occasion entry doesn't get deleted. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:46 PM To: cjwhite@cisco.com Cc: 'Robert Treat'; pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Question about DB VACUUM "Chris White (cjwhite)" <cjwhite@cisco.com> writes: > The index has grown by 4 pages and the table has grown by 10 pages. > BTW, what is a page size? Why is this happening as this is the table > that I am theoretically keeping the same size by adding/deleting the > same objects from. Kinda looks like you aren't doing anything to remove no-longer-referenced large objects. An LO is not a BLOB; it has an independent existence. You may care to look into contrib/lo and/or contrib/vacuumlo. Or possibly you should be using wide text or bytea fields, not large objects at all... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: