Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I recently noticed that this database has grown to a huge size. ... > Which I found to be somewhat odd because none of the tables have more > than around 1000 rows. I hadn't been vacuuming because I didn't > think that anything would ever be deleted.... so I performed a vacuum > full... but no luck, it was still about 6.4GB. > > With some help of the folks on IRC I discovered... > postgres=# select relname, pg_relation_size(oid) FROM pg_class ORDER > BY 2 DESC LIMIT 2; > relname | pg_relation_size > -----------------------------+------------------ > pg_shdepend_depender_index | 159465472 > pg_shdepend_reference_index | 97271808 > (2 rows)
Huh, that's very strange. The pg_shdepend table is a shared catalog, unlike most other catalogs. Still I don't see why would the indexes not shrink. Do pg_authid, pg_database, or pg_tablespace show a similar behavior? Is amarok creating a lot of temp tables or something? When you did that vacuum full, was there a process connected to the same or another database that could be holding onto the pg_shdepend table? I'll have a look at the code, but I thought I might throw that out, just in case it rings a bell. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
