Excerpts from Brad Nicholson's message of vie ago 06 12:01:27 -0400 2010: > On 10-08-06 11:45 AM, Gordon Shannon wrote: > > OK, so if it knew that all vacuumable tuples could be found in 492 pages, > > and > > it scanned only those pages, then how could it be that it reports 16558 > > removable tuples from those 492 pages, when it has already reported earlier > > that it removed 45878 tuples -- a number we know in fact to be correct? How > > could both statements be correct? > > It found 45878 dead tuples in 396 pages for the index authors_archive_pkey. > > It found 16558 dead tuples in 492 pages for the table authors_archive.
But why did it choose to skip the rest of the pages in authors_archive, if there certainly are a lot of vacuumable tuples in (some of) them? -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
