Thread: Large files in main/base
Hello everyone, We had a problem with one of our servers and had noticed that the postgres/8.3/main folder had become quite large (>650mb). PostgreSQL confirmed this via a query but when I queried the size of the tables I was barely reaching 3mb. After looking around, I found one file with about 580 mb. From the contents I have the feeling it is some kind of changelog or similar. My Questions: What is it? How can I reduce it? How can I prevent it from reaching that size again? Thanks Frank DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, the information contained in this message is privileged and confidential, and is intended onlyfor the use of the addressee(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you arenot the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/orattachments is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmittedby this email. Furthermore, the company does not warrant a proper and complete transmission of this information,nor does it accept liability for any delays. If you have received this message in error, please contact the senderand delete the message. Thank you.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Henry, Frank <frank.henry@barco.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We had a problem with one of our servers and had noticed that the > postgres/8.3/main folder had become quite large (>650mb). > PostgreSQL confirmed this via a query but when I queried the size of the > tables I was barely reaching 3mb. > > After looking around, I found one file with about 580 mb. From the > contents I have the feeling it is some kind of changelog or similar. And it is? So close to telling us. > > My Questions: > What is it? Why don't you tell us?
Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Henry, Frank <frank.henry@barco.com> wrote:
>> What is it?
> Why don't you tell us?
The exact name of the file might be useful information, too.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:31 +0200, Henry, Frank wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We had a problem with one of our servers and had noticed that the > postgres/8.3/main folder had become quite large (>650mb). > PostgreSQL confirmed this via a query but when I queried the size of the > tables I was barely reaching 3mb. > > After looking around, I found one file with about 580 mb. From the > contents I have the feeling it is some kind of changelog or similar. Name of file? Version of PostgreSQL? JD
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Henry, Frank <frank.henry@barco.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We had a problem with one of our servers and had noticed that the > postgres/8.3/main folder had become quite large (>650mb). > PostgreSQL confirmed this via a query but when I queried the size of the > tables I was barely reaching 3mb. > > After looking around, I found one file with about 580 mb. From the > contents I have the feeling it is some kind of changelog or similar. pg_clog? If that's growing you've got a possible problem with a long running query.
>> What is it?
> Why don't you tell us?
> The exact name of the file might be useful information, too.
It is : postgres/8.3/main/base/16385/2613
Thanks.
Ciao Dirk.
DISCLAIMER:
Unless indicated otherwise, the information contained in this message is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachments is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Furthermore, the company does not warrant a proper and complete transmission of this information, nor does it accept liability for any delays. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. Thank you.
Le 10/07/2010 12:43, Neuber, Dirk a écrit : >>> What is it? > >> Why don't you tell us? > >> The exact name of the file might be useful information, too. > > It is : postgres/8.3/main/base/16385/2613 > This is a system catalog, pg_largeobject, which holds binary objects. If you use Large Objects, no wonder this table could be really big. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> writes:
> Le 10/07/2010 12:43, Neuber, Dirk a �crit :
>>> The exact name of the file might be useful information, too.
>>
>> It is : postgres/8.3/main/base/16385/2613
> This is a system catalog, pg_largeobject, which holds binary objects. If
> you use Large Objects, no wonder this table could be really big.
Also worth noting is that there's no automatic deletion mechanism for
large objects. It could be that the space is being eaten by LOs that
aren't referenced anymore. If so, you should think about applying
contrib/lo and/or contrib/vacuumlo to manage your LOs.
regards, tom lane
> >> It is : postgres/8.3/main/base/16385/2613 > > > This is a system catalog, pg_largeobject, which holds > binary objects. If > > you use Large Objects, no wonder this table could be really big. > > Also worth noting is that there's no automatic deletion mechanism for > large objects. It could be that the space is being eaten by LOs that > aren't referenced anymore. If so, you should think about applying > contrib/lo and/or contrib/vacuumlo to manage your LOs. > Thanks a lot. vacuumlo did the job. Indeed there were more the 100.000 orphaned LOs in pg_largeobject. We have to check how we can avoid this by using contrib/lo or in general without using LOs. One last question. After using vacuumlo the file size of 16385/2613 is still the same as before. It seems the content has been removed but the file itself hasn't been compacted. Is there an option or tool which can do this as well ? Ciao Dirk. DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, the information contained in this message is privileged and confidential, and is intended onlyfor the use of the addressee(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you arenot the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/orattachments is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmittedby this email. Furthermore, the company does not warrant a proper and complete transmission of this information,nor does it accept liability for any delays. If you have received this message in error, please contact the senderand delete the message. Thank you.
"Neuber, Dirk" <dirk.neuber@barco.com> writes:
> One last question. After using vacuumlo the file size of 16385/2613 is
> still the same as before.
> It seems the content has been removed but the file itself hasn't been
> compacted.
> Is there an option or tool which can do this as well ?
Yeah, you still need to apply VACUUM FULL to bring the physical file
size down. (Ordinary VACUUM mostly just recycles space within the
file --- it can truncate the file if the end pages are empty, but
it won't move data around to make that possible.)
regards, tom lane