Tom Lane wrote: > Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>it seems that a vacuum full on the whole DB is more aggressive. > > > It is not. > > A much more plausible theory is that this is the result of concurrent > changes to the table. It is clear from the "dead row versions" stats > that there were concurrent transactions ...
That is the more updated/inserted table, and yes there were some concurrent transaction but, is it plausible that 82 dead rows were responsible of grab 26000 index row:
INFO: index "ua_user_data_exp_id_user_key" now contains 34438 row versions in 886 pages DETAIL: 27488 index row versions were removed.
instead of:
INFO: index "ua_user_data_exp_id_user_key" now contains 34519 row versions in 886 pages DETAIL: 1362 index row versions were removed.
Regards Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
