Re: [ADMIN] questions on toast tables

2006-04-30 Thread Warren Little
Tom, thanks much for your help, the cluster command did the trick. fyi running 8.1.2 On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 14:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Warren Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Could this be the reference to the toast table that is preventing the > > vacuum from deleting the toast data?

Re: [ADMIN] questions on toast tables

2006-04-29 Thread Tom Lane
Warren Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Could this be the reference to the toast table that is preventing the > vacuum from deleting the toast data? And what purges "dropped" columns > if not a full vacuum. Actually, the way that toast references work is that they'll go away at the next updat

Re: [ADMIN] questions on toast tables

2006-04-29 Thread Warren Little
selecting pg_attributes for the casedocument table shows there is column with the following attributes 24216115|"pg.dropped.2"|0|0|-1|2|0|-1|-1|f|"x"|"i"|f|f| t|t| I also noticed a few other tables have a similar "dropped" column. Could this be the reference to the toast table th

Re: [ADMIN] questions on toast tables

2006-04-29 Thread Warren Little
I am now a little confused. I ran the following with all but localhost connections disabled vacuumdb --full --verbose -t casedocument -d tigris > vacfull.log 2>&1 which produced the following output: INFO: vacuuming "public.casedocument" INFO: "casedocument": found 0 removable, 39663 nonremov

Re: [ADMIN] questions on toast tables

2006-04-28 Thread Warren Little
Tom, I'll run the vacuum over the weekend and see how that goes. And, yes, large pdf documents (4-24mb a piece). thanks On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Warren Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 3) I know that once upon a time the table had a bytea column, but that > >

Re: [ADMIN] questions on toast tables

2006-04-28 Thread Tom Lane
Warren Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 3) I know that once upon a time the table had a bytea column, but that > was dropped. Do I need to do a full vacuum on that table to get rid of > the related toast data? Yup. (I take it it was a pretty darn bulky bytea column, too)