Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates
От
Andreas Kretschmer
Тема
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates
Дата
Msg-id
20161210123636.GA10052@tux
Ответ на
[GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates (Tom DalPozzo)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
[GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@spamfence.net>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates "t.dalpozzo@gmail.com" <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Alban Hertroys <haramrae@gmail.com>
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
Tom DalPozzo wrote:
> Hi,
> I've a table ('stato') with an indexed bigint ('Id') and 5 bytea fields
> ('d0','d1',...,'d4').
> I populated the table with 10000 rows; each d.. field inizialized with 20
> bytes.
> Reported table size is 1.5MB. OK.
> Now, for 1000 times, I update 2000 different rows each time, changing d0
> filed keeping the same length, and at the end of all, I issued VACUUM.
> Now table size is 29MB.
>
> Why so big? What is an upper bound to estimate a table occupation on disk?
every (!) update creates a new row-version and marks the old row as
'old', but don't delete the old row.
A Vacuum marks old rows as reuseable - if there is no runnung
transaction that can see the old row-version. That's how MVCC works in
PostgreSQL.
Regards, Andreas Kretschmer
--
Andreas Kretschmer
http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления
От: Tom DalPozzo
Дата: