Re: Vacuum on the database versus individual tables. - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Hartman, Matthew
Subject Re: Vacuum on the database versus individual tables.
Date
Msg-id 366642367C5B354197A1E0D27BC175BD0225979F@KGHMAIL.KGH.ON.CA
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum on the database versus individual tables.  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
List pgsql-general
But it'll do so immediately after I run a full vacuum on the entire database? Nothing has changed. This is a
developmentbox. 

You know, I bet it doesn't refresh the view of the database after having run the maintenance script..

Matthew Hartman
Programmer/Analyst
Information Management, ICP
Kingston General Hospital
(613) 549-6666 x4294


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Page [mailto:dpage@pgadmin.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:00 PM
To: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
Cc: Hartman, Matthew; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum on the database versus individual tables.

2009/6/25 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>:
> 2009/6/25 Hartman, Matthew <Matthew.Hartman@krcc.on.ca>:
>> Windows XP, PostgreSQL 8.3.5, using pgAdmin III 1.8.4. It's the typical "Running vacuum on this table is
recommended"dialog box. 
>
> Well, it really has nothing to do with postgresql it self. Either it
> is a bug or property of PgAdmin, but I don't know.
> Either someone who knows more about pgadmin is going to respond here,
> or you have to ask on pgadmin list.

pgAdmin will advise vacuuming a table if there is a significant
discrepancy between the number of rows in the table and the value in
pg_class.reltuples. i forget the exact algorithm off-hand, but it
takes the size of the table into account, and is looking for a %age
difference between the value, not a set number of rows.


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Alan Hodgson
Date:
Subject: Re: planned recovery from a certain transaction
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum on the database versus individual tables.