Call closed: Almost happy ending (from "Data files became huge with no apparent reason" thread) - Mailing list pgsql-general

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 12:39:01PM +0200, Dario Fumagalli wrote:
>
>>Step by step procedure:
>>1) I stopped the postmaster and made sure no process was still on (ps aux)
>>2) As postgres user I started postgres -O -P -D path etc.
>>3) A prompt appeared. Here I typed reindex proj_store force (I'm trying
>>to remember it since I'm not in the company the server is in).
>>4) Messages appeared stating indexes were being rebuilt (no errors shown).
>>5) I hit CTRL-D. Postgres exited.
>>6) I restarted the postmaster.
>>
>
> Should work but seems excessive.
>
>
>>  pg_operator_oprname_l_r_k_index | 1092613 |      0 |      0 | i |    7
>>  pg_proc                         |    1255 |  17231 |  17243 | r |   28
>>  pg_proc_oid_index               |   17166 |      0 |      0 | i |    5
>>  pg_proc_proname_narg_type_index |   17169 |      0 |      0 | i |   20
>>
>
> Your list seems truncated?
>


True (I think due to some clipboard blues with telnet). Here there are
the remaining part:

  pg_relcheck                     |    1216 |  17246 |  17258 | r |    0
  pg_relcheck_rcrelid_index       | 1092625 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  pg_rewrite                      |   17058 |  17261 |  17273 | r |    1
  pg_rewrite_oid_index            | 1092626 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_rewrite_rulename_index       | 1092627 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_rules                        |   17309 |      0 |      0 | v |   10
  pg_shadow                       |    1260 |      0 |      0 | r |    1
  pg_statistic                    |   16600 |  17276 |  17288 | r |    4
  pg_statistic_relid_att_index    | 1092628 |      0 |      0 | i |    4
  pg_tables                       |   17335 |      0 |      0 | v |   10
  pg_toast_1215                   |   17201 |      0 |      0 | t |    0
  pg_toast_1215_idx               |   17213 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  pg_toast_1216                   |   17246 |      0 |      0 | t |    0
  pg_toast_1216_idx               |   17258 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  pg_toast_1255                   |   17231 |      0 |      0 | t |    0
  pg_toast_1255_idx               |   17243 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  pg_toast_16600                  |   17276 |      0 |      0 | t |    1
  pg_toast_16600_idx              |   17288 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_toast_17058                  |   17261 |      0 |      0 | t |    0
  pg_toast_17058_idx              |   17273 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  pg_toast_17086                  |   17216 |      0 |      0 | t |    0
  pg_toast_17086_idx              |   17228 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  pg_toast_258417                 |  258525 |      0 |      0 | t |    0
  pg_toast_258417_idx             |  258537 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  pg_trigger                      |    1219 |      0 |      0 | r |    1
  pg_trigger_tgconstrname_index   | 1092606 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_trigger_tgconstrrelid_index  | 1092607 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_trigger_tgrelid_index        | 1092608 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_type                         |    1247 |      0 |      0 | r |    3
  pg_type_oid_index               |   17193 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_type_typname_index           |   17196 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  pg_user                         |   17291 |      0 |      0 | v |   10
  pg_variable                     |    1264 |      0 |      0 | s |    0
  pg_views                        |   17322 |      0 |      0 | v |   10
  pg_xactlock                     |       0 |      0 |      0 | s |    0
  products                        |  258417 | 258525 | 258537 | r |   66
  products_pkey                   |  258540 |      0 |      0 | i | 1653
  products_seq                    |  258398 |      0 |      0 | S |   10
  video_connectors                |  258277 |      0 |      0 | r |    0
  video_connectors_pkey           |  258290 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  video_connectors_seq            |  258258 |      0 |      0 | S |   10
  video_resolutions               |  258204 |      0 |      0 | r |    1
  video_resolutions_pkey          |  258220 |      0 |      0 | i |    2
  video_resolutions_seq           |  258185 |      0 |      0 | S |   10
  video_standards                 |  258242 |      0 |      0 | r |    0
  video_standards_pkey            |  258255 |      0 |      0 | i |    1
  video_standards_seq             |  258223 |      0 |      0 | S |   10


>
>>As you may see, *_pkey primary keys are BIG. They are the only ones I
>>didn't dare to drop and re-create.
>>
>>Ex.
>>
>>  products_pkey                   |  258540 |      0 |      0 | i | 1653
>>
>>where the entire table takes 66 pages, or, worse
>>
>>  det_prod_dep_consumpt_pkey      |  258764 |      0 |      0 | i | 3286
>>
>>where the entire table takes 21 pages.
>>
>
> What happens if you say "REINDEX INDEX products_pkey" or "REINDEX INDEX
> det_prod_dep_consumpt_pkey". Do those numbers change?
>


Yes, it did it!

proj_store=# REINDEX INDEX products_pkey;
REINDEX
proj_store=# REINDEX INDEX det_prod_dep_consumpt_pkey
REINDEX
proj_store=# select relname, relfilenode as node, reltoastrelid as relid,
proj_store=# reltoastidxid as idxid, relkind as k, relpages as pag from
pg_class order by relname;

[Snip]
             relname             |  node   | relid  | idxid  | k | pag
--------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+---+------
det_prod_dep_consumpt_pkey      | 1224634 |      0 |      0 | i |    6
[Snip]
products_pkey                   | 1224633 |      0 |      0 | i |    5

BUT... there is a but...

The du -h command says that, despite the reported index reduction, the
overall database size has increased to 105 MB (?)!.

And this raises a question: why a reindex proj_store force in single
user mode did not packed the indexes while from psql / multiuser
postmaster it did? Bah!


> What is the output of "VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYSE products".
>


proj_store=# VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYSE products;
proj_store-#
NOTICE:  --Relation products--
NOTICE:  Pages 6142: Changed 66, reaped 6076, Empty 0, New 0; Tup 976:
Vac 90768
, Keep/VTL 0/0, Crash 0, UnUsed 3, MinLen 510, MaxLen 622; Re-using:
Free/Avail.
  Space 49289988/49289988; EndEmpty/Avail. Pages 0/6076. CPU 0.25s/0.05u
sec.
NOTICE:  Index products_pkey: Pages 5; Tuples 976: Deleted 0. CPU
0.01s/0.00u se
c.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_csc: Pages 832; Tuples 976: Deleted 90768.
CPU 0.59s
/1.12u sec.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_b: Pages 729; Tuples 976: Deleted 90768. CPU
0.38s/0
.93u sec.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_b2: Pages 275; Tuples 976: Deleted 90768.
CPU 0.29s/
0.94u sec.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_v: Pages 265; Tuples 976: Deleted 90768. CPU
0.20s/0
.95u sec.
NOTICE:  Rel products: Pages: 6142 --> 66; Tuple(s) moved: 976. CPU
5.05s/1.67u
sec.
NOTICE:  Index products_pkey: Pages 7; Tuples 976: Deleted 976. CPU
0.00s/0.02u
sec.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_csc: Pages 832; Tuples 976: Deleted 976. CPU
0.55s/0
.23u sec.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_b: Pages 730; Tuples 976: Deleted 976. CPU
0.16s/0.0
2u sec.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_b2: Pages 278; Tuples 976: Deleted 976. CPU
0.06s/0.
01u sec.
NOTICE:  Index idx_products_v: Pages 267; Tuples 976: Deleted 976. CPU
0.05s/0.0
0u sec.
NOTICE:  --Relation pg_toast_258417--
NOTICE:  Pages 0: Changed 0, reaped 0, Empty 0, New 0; Tup 0: Vac 0,
Keep/VTL 0/
0, Crash 0, UnUsed 0, MinLen 0, MaxLen 0; Re-using: Free/Avail. Space
0/0; EndEm
pty/Avail. Pages 0/0. CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec.
NOTICE:  Index pg_toast_258417_idx: Pages 1; Tuples 0. CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec.
NOTICE:  Analyzing...
VACUUM
proj_store=#


>
>>And "not easily"? I may make backups, go standalone, and do whatever
>>evil you may think ;)
>>BTW I have the scripts to re-create indexes or constraints and know how
>>to hack them, since I'm the programmer in charge for all (sql, programs,
>>db administration) for that company.
>>
>
> REINDEX should do it. Please provide the output of the vacuum command.


I finally made a VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYZE.

It did things (lots of deletions and some moves) on the affected tables.
But now, if I reissue the pg_class query, I get figures like the following:
              relname             |  node   | relid  | idxid  | k | pag
---------------------------------+---------+--------+--------+---+------
  idx_det_prod_comp_vid_connsp    | 1094065 |      0 |      0 | i |   1
  idx_det_prod_dep_consumptdp     | 1094068 |      0 |      0 | i | 479
  idx_det_prod_vid_connsp         | 1094059 |      0 |      0 | i |   1
  idx_det_prod_vid_resp           | 1094053 |      0 |      0 | i |   1
  idx_det_prod_vid_stdsp          | 1094056 |      0 |      0 | i |   1
  idx_det_turnover_c              | 1094095 |      0 |      0 | i |   4
  idx_det_turnover_t              | 1094098 |      0 |      0 | i |   4
  idx_products_b                  | 1094044 |      0 |      0 | i | 733
  idx_products_b2                 | 1094047 |      0 |      0 | i | 281
  idx_products_csc                | 1094041 |      0 |      0 | i | 832
  idx_products_v                  | 1094050 |      0 |      0 | i | 270

So, new big index file have born!
After this vacuum, du -h reports:

[postgres@web base]$ du -h
1.6M    ./1
1.5M    ./18719
24M     ./242014
11M     ./46821
1.7M    ./197097
2.3M    ./279236
43M

A lower disk usage than after the reindex above (still more than the
expected 26MB). The development machine (with 3 weeks old outdated data,
unfortunately, but still with the same record figures (+-5%)):

[postgres@web base]$ du -h
1.6M    ./1
1.5M    ./18719
6.3M    ./250600
11M     ./46821
1.7M    ./197097
2.2M    ./259865
25M


>
>>It would be acceptable, instead, to have a database that is never
>>optimized at 100% (i.e. it has "gaps" because of non full vacuums that
>>add for about another almost FIXED 30%), but that NEVER, NEVER grows out
>>of control. We may prepare a db maintenance plan that includes a full
>>vacuum every 6 months.
>>
>
> Firstly, for 7.2 vacuum doesn't lock any tables, so you can run it as often
> as you like. And why only every six months? Just do it daily. If your tables
> are so small, it should take seconds to vacuum to whole database. The


This question is about a different database server for another (very
big) company. Here records are not hundreds, they are 10 millions up.
And a vacuum I fear will last for more that some seconds.


> default debian setup runs vacuum daily, as is recommended in the docs.


I hoped to be able to use a Debian. I had to mediate between Open Source
(Debian, the preferred for us the developers) and a closed, commercial
solution (loved by management... sigh). The solution was a Caldera... a
Linux solution but with some commercial bells and whistles on it to make
everyone happy. But I don't like it as Debian for programming purposes.
It is too Red-Hattish :) and comes with ancient tools and libraries.


>
> Hope this helps,
>

IT HELPED A LOT!!!
In fact using your suggestion and some bricolage :) I solved all the
problems!

Steps to reproduce it:

- Given that single user REINDEX [database name] FORCE in single user
modedid rebuild the indexes but did not optimize them;
- Given that a REINDEX INDEX [index name] did optimize and shrink a
single index but increased the overall data size;
- Given that a VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYZE somehow alters the overall
database files size (seems to re-distribute the file space evenly across
indexes);
- Given that I was at a loss and ready to do anything with a logical
sense (or not);

1) I reindexed all excessively big indexes one by one in psql:

REINDEX INDEX dep_names_pkey;
REINDEX INDEX det_prod_dep_consumpt_pkey;
REINDEX INDEX idx_det_prod_dep_consumptdp;
REINDEX INDEX idx_products_b;
REINDEX INDEX idx_products_b2;
REINDEX INDEX idx_products_csc;
REINDEX INDEX idx_products_v;

So there was no surplus pages anywhere.

2) I performed a VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYZE, that having nothing to
re-distribute, simply "ate" all the wasted space.

I know this is probably the weirdest and uninformed / untechnical
"reasoning" you saw in this list from years, but it has one small,
almost unnoticeable advantage: IT WORKED AND NOW THE DATABASE IS ITS
ORIGINAL SIZE AGAIN (even less).

Output of the du -h command of the production machine:

[postgres@web base]$ du -h
1.6M    ./1
1.5M    ./18719
4.0M    ./242014
11M     ./46821
1.7M    ./197097
2.3M    ./279236
22M

The machine is open to users again an is as fast as it was, making again
this LAPP (Linux + Apache + PostgreSQL + PHP 4) intranet / extranet
server the envy of the others bigger but bloated JSP / ASP / Commercial
solutions that sit near him.

Thanks again all for the excellent responses. They really helped a lot.

My best regards,
Dario Fumagalli