Re: Performance degradation, index bloat and planner estimates
От | Craig Ringer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance degradation, index bloat and planner estimates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C998184.2070402@postnewspapers.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Performance degradation, index bloat and planner estimates (Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance degradation, index bloat and planner estimates
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 20/09/2010 7:59 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote: > Does anybody have some information about where the bloat is coming > from and what is the best way to get rid of it? Would a vacuum full > fix this kind of problem? Is there a way to fix it without taking the > system offline? It's hard to know where the index bloat comes from. The usual cause I see reported here is with regular VACUUM FULL use, which doesn't seem to be a factor in your case. A VACUUM FULL will not address index bloat; it's more likely to add to it. You'd want to use CLUSTER instead, but that'll still require an exclusive lock that takes the table offline for some time. Your current solution - a concurrent reindex - is your best bet for a workaround until you find out what's causing the bloat. If the bloat issue were with relations rather than indexes I'd suspect free space map issues as you're on 8.3. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/runtime-config-resource.html My (poor) understanding is that index-only bloat probably won't be an FSM issue. > The indexed condition is a state of the evolution of the records in > the table: many records assume that state for some time, then move to > a different state no more indexed. Is the continuous addition/deletion > of records to the index causing the bloat (which can be then > considered limited to the indexes with a similar usage pattern)? Personally I don't know enough to answer that. I would've expected that proper VACUUMing would address any resulting index bloat, but > Any idea of where the 20M record estimate is coming from? Isn't the > size of the partial index taken into account in the estimate? I'd really help to have EXPLAIN ANALYZE output here. -- Craig Ringer Tech-related writing at http://soapyfrogs.blogspot.com/
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: