[PERFORM] Clarification on two bits on VACUUM FULL VERBOSE output

2004-11-12 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, Wanted to get clarification on two bits of output from 7.4's VACUUM FULL VERBOSE: "Total free space (including removable row versions) is 2932036 bytes." If the table referenced has no dead row versions, does this indicate open space on partially full pages? "There were 33076 unused ite

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on two bits on VACUUM FULL VERBOSE output

2004-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wanted to get clarification on two bits of output from 7.4's VACUUM FULL > VERBOSE: > "Total free space (including removable row versions) is 2932036 bytes." > If the table referenced has no dead row versions, does this indicate open > space on partially

Re: [PERFORM] Strange (?) Index behavior?

2004-11-12 Thread Allen Landsidel
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:41:51 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Allen Landsidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Clustering is really unworkable in this situation. > > Nonetheless, please do it in your test scenario, so we can see if it has > any effect or not. It did not, not enough to

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on two bits on VACUUM FULL VERBOSE output

2004-11-12 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, > > "There were 33076 unused item pointers." > > Is this a count of dead index pointers, or something else? > > No, it's currently-unused item pointers (a/k/a line pointers) on heap > pages. ÂSee http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/page.html So this would be a count of pointers who

Re: [PERFORM] Clarification on two bits on VACUUM FULL VERBOSE output

2004-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> "There were 33076 unused item pointers." >>> Is this a count of dead index pointers, or something else? >> >> No, it's currently-unused item pointers (a/k/a line pointers) on heap >> pages. See http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/page.html > S

Re: [PERFORM] Strange (?) Index behavior?

2004-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
Allen Landsidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:41:51 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Allen Landsidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Clustering is really unworkable in this situation. >> >> Nonetheless, please do it in your test scenario, so we can see if it has

Re: [PERFORM] Strange (?) Index behavior?

2004-11-12 Thread Allen Landsidel
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:35:00 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Allen Landsidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:41:51 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Allen Landsidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> Clustering is really unworkable in this situ