| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Kim" <kim(at)myemma(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2upgrade |
| Date: | 2007-01-11 23:14:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1168557275.3990.49.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > It's not clear to me how this fix will alter the INSERT issue Kim
> > mentions.
>
> I didn't say that it would; we have no information on the INSERT issue,
> so I'm just concentrating on the problem that he did provide info on.
OK.
> I'm frankly not real surprised that there are performance issues with
> such a huge pg_class; it's not a regime that anyone's spent any time
> optimizing.
Yeh, I saw a pg_class that big once, but it just needed a VACUUM.
Temp relations still make pg_class entried don't they? Is that on the
TODO list to change?
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jam | 2007-01-11 23:23:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |
| Previous Message | Kim | 2007-01-11 23:12:46 | Re: unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Cesar Suga | 2007-01-11 23:47:33 | Re: RES: Improving SQL performance |
| Previous Message | Kim | 2007-01-11 23:12:46 | Re: unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade |