Re: [HACKERS] pgstatindex still throws ERROR: value "3220078592" is out of range for type integer

2010-06-09 Thread Dave Cramer
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Takahiro Itagaki wrote: > > Dave Cramer wrote: > >> I noted on line 169 that max_avail is still an int ? Where else would >> it be having problems ? > > It should not a problem because the local variable only stores byte > size in a page. It will be at most only BL

Re: [HACKERS] pgstatindex still throws ERROR: value "3220078592" is out of range for type integer

2010-06-07 Thread Takahiro Itagaki
Dave Cramer wrote: > I noted on line 169 that max_avail is still an int ? Where else would > it be having problems ? It should not a problem because the local variable only stores byte size in a page. It will be at most only BLCKSZ (=8192). I wonder why you had "ERROR: value ... is out of rang

[HACKERS] pgstatindex still throws ERROR: value "3220078592" is out of range for type integer

2010-06-07 Thread Dave Cramer
I noted on line 169 that max_avail is still an int ? Where else would it be having problems ? Dave -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pgstatindex

2002-05-27 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> Oh. Hmm, if that's what you want then I do not think an indexscan is > the way to go about it. The indexscan will only visit leaf pages > (and not, for example, internal nodes of a btree). Also the > free-space-counting code you're using seems pretty unworkable since the > indexscan is unlike

Re: [HACKERS] pgstatindex

2002-05-27 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sure. In my understanding, unlike tables "free/reusable space" is > actually not reused in index. pgstatindex would be usefull to judge if > REINDEX is needed by showing the growth of physical length and > "free/reusable space". Oh. Hmm, if that's what

Re: [HACKERS] pgstatindex

2002-05-26 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> Um ... what's the point? Isn't this always the same as the percentage > for the underlying table? Sure. In my understanding, unlike tables "free/reusable space" is actually not reused in index. pgstatindex would be usefull to judge if REINDEX is needed by showing the growth of physical length

Re: [HACKERS] pgstatindex

2002-05-26 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here is a new contrib function called "pgstatindex", similar to > pgstattuple but different in that it returns the percentage of the > dead tuples of an index. I am posting this for review purpose. Um ... what's the point? Isn't this always the same as

[HACKERS] pgstatindex

2002-05-25 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
Here is a new contrib function called "pgstatindex", similar to pgstattuple but different in that it returns the percentage of the dead tuples of an index. I am posting this for review purpose. Installation of pgstatindex is pretty easy: unpack the tar package in contrib directory. cd into pgsta