Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 08:20:04PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alexander M. Pravking wrote: > > As I see, contrib/reindexdb requires perl for commandline > > procesing. I don't think it's a good idea, since > > e.g. FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT have no perl in standard distribution. > > > > Thomas, why not to use sed? > > No perl? I am no perl guy, but I assumed everyone had that already. > > I just looked at the code, and yes, it should use sed rather than perl, > especially since it is using it just for processing command line args. > > Seems it is a problem/bug for you. Patch applied to use sed rather than > perl. Well, I DO use perl, so it's not a problem for me :) But I see many people on these lists that do not. Thanks, Bruce. -- Fduch M. Pravking ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
Alexander M. Pravking wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:48:00PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tim, I guess your problem is dead index pages that can't be reclaimed, > > and it isn't fixed in 7.3. Only REINDEX fixes it, and we have a > > /contrib/reindexdb script in 7.3. > > As I see, contrib/reindexdb requires perl for commandline > procesing. I don't think it's a good idea, since > e.g. FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT have no perl in standard distribution. > > Thomas, why not to use sed? No perl? I am no perl guy, but I assumed everyone had that already. I just looked at the code, and yes, it should use sed rather than perl, especially since it is using it just for processing command line args. Seems it is a problem/bug for you. Patch applied to use sed rather than perl. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 Index: contrib/reindexdb/reindexdb === RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/contrib/reindexdb/reindexdb,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -c -c -r1.2 reindexdb *** contrib/reindexdb/reindexdb 18 Oct 2002 18:41:20 - 1.2 --- contrib/reindexdb/reindexdb 3 Nov 2002 01:19:21 - *** *** 111,118 dbname="$2" shift ;; ! -d*|--dbname=*) ! dbname=`echo $1 | perl -pn -e 's/^--?d(bname=)?//'` ;; # Reindex specific Table. Disables index reindexing. --- 111,121 dbname="$2" shift ;; ! -d*) ! dbname=`echo "$1" | sed 's/^-d/'` ! ;; ! --dbname=*) ! dbname=`echo "$1" | sed 's/^--dbname=//'` ;; # Reindex specific Table. Disables index reindexing. *** *** 120,127 table="$2" shift ;; ! -t*|--table=*) ! table=`echo $1 | perl -pn -e 's/^--?t(able=)?//'` ;; # Reindex specific index. Disables table reindexing. --- 123,133 table="$2" shift ;; ! -t*) ! table=`echo "$1" | sed 's/^-t//'` ! ;; ! --table=*) ! table=`echo "$1" | sed 's/^--table=//'` ;; # Reindex specific index. Disables table reindexing. *** *** 129,136 index="$2" shift ;; ! -i*|--index=*) ! index=`echo $1 | perl -pn -e 's/^--?i(ndex=)?//'` ;; # Yeah, no options? Whine, and show usage. --- 135,145 index="$2" shift ;; ! -i*) ! index=`echo "$1" | sed 's/^-i//'` ! ;; ! --index=*) ! index=`echo "$1" | sed 's/^--index=//'` ;; # Yeah, no options? Whine, and show usage. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:48:00PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tim, I guess your problem is dead index pages that can't be reclaimed, > and it isn't fixed in 7.3. Only REINDEX fixes it, and we have a > /contrib/reindexdb script in 7.3. As I see, contrib/reindexdb requires perl for commandline procesing. I don't think it's a good idea, since e.g. FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT have no perl in standard distribution. Thomas, why not to use sed? -- Fduch M. Pravking ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
Tim Perdue wrote: > I had this same problem with 7.1.x, even doing full vacuums on > SourceForge.net last year. > > I assumed after a while that there was some hidden bug where file bloat > occurred, despite the vacuum. After 3 months or so, you'd have to > dump/restore the entire db and you'd be golden for a while again. After > the dump/restore process things seemed much snappier too, and vacuum ran > almost instantly. > > I haven't verified if this problem still occurs in 7.2.x, using vacuum full. Tim, I guess your problem is dead index pages that can't be reclaimed, and it isn't fixed in 7.3. Only REINDEX fixes it, and we have a /contrib/reindexdb script in 7.3. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
Maurício Sessue Otta wrote: Hi, in my production server a "du -hs" in the DATA directory returns 21GB in a newly installed server, after I restored the dumps from the production server, the "du -hs" gives me just 8GB why is there such a diference??? what should I do (besides buying bigger and bigger HDs) ??? []'s Mauricio I had this same problem with 7.1.x, even doing full vacuums on SourceForge.net last year. I assumed after a while that there was some hidden bug where file bloat occurred, despite the vacuum. After 3 months or so, you'd have to dump/restore the entire db and you'd be golden for a while again. After the dump/restore process things seemed much snappier too, and vacuum ran almost instantly. I haven't verified if this problem still occurs in 7.2.x, using vacuum full. Tim ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, [iso-8859-1] Maurício Sessue Otta wrote: > I do daily vacuums on the production server You haven't said what version you're running, but if you're using 7.2 and non-FULL vacuums you also will want to make sure that you have the free space map settings in postgresql.conf are large enough. Also, you may need to use reindex to lower the space usage by indexes. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
I do daily vacuums on the production server | > Hi, in my production server a "du -hs" in the DATA directory | > returns 21GB | > in a newly installed server, after I restored the dumps from the | > production server, the "du -hs" gives me just 8GB | > | > why is there such a diference??? | > | > what should I do (besides buying bigger and bigger HDs) ??? | VACUUM? | | ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
Hi, in my production server a "du -hs" in the DATA directory returns 21GB in a newly installed server, after I restored the dumps from the production server, the "du -hs" gives me just 8GB why is there such a diference??? what should I do (besides buying bigger and bigger HDs) ??? VACUUM? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
[SQL] Different size in the DATA directory
Hi, in my production server a "du -hs" in the DATA directory returns 21GB in a newly installed server, after I restored the dumps from the production server, the "du -hs" gives me just 8GB why is there such a diference??? what should I do (besides buying bigger and bigger HDs) ??? []'s Mauricio
