Re: Vacuum goes worse - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Stéphane Schildknecht
Subject Re: Vacuum goes worse
Date
Msg-id 4715F2ED.20604@postgresqlfr.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum goes worse  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Vacuum goes worse  ("Stefano Dal Pra" <s.dalpra@gmail.com>)
Re: Vacuum goes worse  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Vacuum goes worse  ("Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Tom Lane a écrit :
> "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/16/07, St=E9phane Schildknecht
>> <stephane.schildknecht@postgresqlfr.org> wrote:
>>
>>> That's also why I am so disappointed vacuum doesn't give me these 4
>>> hints lines.
>>>
>
>
>> What kind of error, or output, does it give you at the end?  Any hint
>> as to why they're missing?
>>
>
> If you're talking about the FSM statistics display, that only gets
> printed by a database-wide VACUUM (one that doesn't name a specific
> table).
>

Yes, I am. The command line is (in a shell script whom ouput is
redirected in a global file) :

vacuumdb -d $DBNAME -p $DBPORT -U $DBUSR -z -v


That does not explain why we don't get FSM statitics display. The output
ends with:
INFO:  vacuuming "public.sometable"
INFO:  "sometable": removed 62 row versions in 3 pages
DETAIL:  CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO:  "sometable": found 62 removable, 5 nonremovable row versions in 5
pages
DETAIL:  0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
There were 534 unused item pointers.
0 pages are entirely empty.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO:  analyzing "public.sometable"
INFO:  "sometable": scanned 5 of 5 pages, containing 5 live rows and 0
dead rows; 5 rows in sample, 5 estimated total rows
VACUUM

Best regards,

Stéphane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Marcin Stępnicki"
Date:
Subject: Re: using a stored proc that returns a result set in a complex SQL stmt
Next
From: "Stefano Dal Pra"
Date:
Subject: two queryes in a single tablescan