Steve Crawford wrote:
On Thursday 17 March 2005 3:15 pm, Steve Crawford wrote:
I'm having trouble with physical growth of postgresql system
tables....
Additional info. The most recent autovacuum entries for the pg_attribute table are:
[2005...] Performing: VACUUM ANALYZE "pg_catalog"."pg_attribute" [2005...] table name: tati."pg_catalog"."pg_attribute" [2005...] relid: 1249; relisshared: 0 [2005...] reltuples: 9334.000000; relpages: 82282 [2005...] curr_analyze_count: 6647115; curr_vacuum_count: 861454 [2005...] last_analyze_count: 6647115; last_vacuum_count: 861454 [2005...] analyze_threshold: 9834; vacuum_threshold: 19668
and
[2005...] Performing: ANALYZE "pg_catalog"."pg_attribute" [2005...] table name: foo."pg_catalog"."pg_attribute" [2005...] relid: 1249; relisshared: 0 [2005...] reltuples: 4843240.000000; relpages: 82284 [2005...] curr_analyze_count: 6657041; curr_vacuum_count: 862897 [2005...] last_analyze_count: 6657041; last_vacuum_count: 861454 [2005...] analyze_threshold: 4843740; vacuum_threshold: 19668
(Both within past 1 day - dates truncated to avoid line-wrap.) The table currently has just over 9,000 tuples and I have no reason to believe that should have changed substantially. The thresholds and counts seem way off - especially in the second pass.
I believe this discrepancy has to do with the fact that ANALYZE can return some very bogus values for reltuples, where as vacuum always returns an accurate count. I'm not sure how to best handle this.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
