Re: index bloat WAS: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-03 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:40:24PM -0400, Joseph S wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Heavy use of temp tables would expand pg_class, pg_type, and especially pg_attribute, but as long as you have a decent vacuuming regimen (do you use autovac?) they shouldn't get out of hand. I do use autovac. Like I

Re: index bloat WAS: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-03 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:40:24PM -0400, Joseph S wrote: I do use autovac. Like I said they don't get really out of hand, only up to 20 megs or so before I noticed that it was weird. The large indexes are what tipped me off that something strange was

[GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-02 Thread Joseph S
My pg_shdepend table has a size of 16,384, but pg_shdepend_depender_index has a size of 19,169,280 and pg_shdepend_reference_index has a size of 49,152. When I try to reindex the table I get: ERROR: shared table pg_shdepend can only be reindexed in stand-alone mode So is there any way I

Re: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joseph S wrote: My pg_shdepend table has a size of 16,384, but pg_shdepend_depender_index has a size of 19,169,280 and pg_shdepend_reference_index has a size of 49,152. When I try to reindex the table I get: ERROR: shared table pg_shdepend can only be reindexed in stand-alone mode So

Re: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-02 Thread Tom Lane
Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My pg_shdepend table has a size of 16,384, but pg_shdepend_depender_index has a size of 19,169,280 and pg_shdepend_reference_index has a size of 49,152. I'd be interested to see the usage pattern that made it get like that ...

Re: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-02 Thread Joseph S
Me too. I don't change my db schema that much, but I experience bloat in the pg_tables that I don't expect. For instance pg_opclass needs a VACUUM FULL/REINDEX once a week or I notice the indexes are larger than the table itself. Could it be my heavy use of temp tables? Today I noticed

index bloat WAS: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-02 Thread Joseph S
Tom Lane wrote: Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me too. I don't change my db schema that much, but I experience bloat in the pg_tables that I don't expect. For instance pg_opclass needs a VACUUM FULL/REINDEX once a week or I notice the indexes are larger than the table itself. Could it

Re: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-02 Thread Tom Lane
Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me too. I don't change my db schema that much, but I experience bloat in the pg_tables that I don't expect. For instance pg_opclass needs a VACUUM FULL/REINDEX once a week or I notice the indexes are larger than the table itself. Could it be my heavy

Re: index bloat WAS: [GENERAL] reindexing pg_shdepend

2007-08-02 Thread Tom Lane
Joseph S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... and when I notice that the tuplesperpage for the indexes is low (or that the indexes are bigger then the tables themselves) I know it is time for a VACUUM FULL and REINDEX on that table. If you are taking the latter as a blind must-be-wrong condition,