Re: Weird issue with planner choosing seq scan
От | Sean Leach |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Weird issue with planner choosing seq scan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D6BCD267-9BBA-4A2C-A86B-632E2DD76A31@wiggum.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Weird issue with planner choosing seq scan ("Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Weird issue with planner choosing seq scan
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Sean Leach <sleach@wiggum.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >>> >>> What version pgsql is this? If it's pre 8.0 it might be worth >>> looking >>> into migrating for performance and maintenance reasons. >> >> It's the latest 8.3.0 release :( > > Urg. Then I wonder how your indexes are bloating but your table is > not... you got autovac running? No weird lock issues? It's a side > issue right now since the table is showing as non-bloated (unless > you've got a long running transaction and that number is WAY off from > your vacuum) Autovac is running, but probably not tuned. I am looking at my max_fsm_pages setting to up as vacuum says, but not sure which value to use (all the posts on the web refer to what looks like an old vacuum output format), is this the line to look at? INFO: "u_counts": found 0 removable, 6214708 nonremovable row versions in 382344 pages DETAIL: 2085075 dead row versions cannot be removed yet. I.e. I need 382344 max_fsm_pages? No weird lock issues that we have seen. So should I do a vacuum full and then hope this doesn't happen again? Or should I run a VACUUM FULL after each aggregation run? Thanks! Sean
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: