On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 16:23 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Jason Long <jason(at)octgsoftware(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 14:58 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jason Long <jason(at)octgsoftware(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > I currently have Postgres 9.0 install after an upgrade. My database is
> >> > relatively small, but complex. The dump is about 90MB.
> >> >
> >> > Every night when there is no activity I do a full vacuum, a reindex,
> >> One question, why?
> >> > and then dump a nightly backup.
> >> Good idea.
> >> > Is this optimal with regards to performance? autovacuum is set to the
> >> > default.
> >> that depends very much on your answer to the question of why are you
> >> doing it and what you're trying to gain / work around with vacuum full
> >> / reindex every night.
> > I have been doing this for several years. Since my database is small
> > and it takes little time to do a full vacuum. I am doing the reindex
> > because I thought that was recommended after a full vacuum.
> Definitely reindex after a full vacuum on previous versions (i.e.
> before 9.0) I think with 9.0 vacuum full is like a cluster without any
> reordering, so it likely doesn't need reindexing, but I've not played
> with 9.0 much yet.
> > As the data has grown the system is slowing down. Right now I am
> > looking at ways to improve performance without getting into the queries
> > themselves because I am swamped with new development.
> OK, so it's a standard maintenance procedure you've been doing for a
> while. That doesn't really explain why you started doing it, but I
> can guess that you had some bloat issues way back when and vacuum full
> fixed them, so doing it got kind of enshrined in the nightly
> > Is doing the full vacuum and reindex hurting or helping anything?
> It might help a small amount if you've got regular usage patterns. If
> you routinely update whole tables over and over then it might be
> > Any other quick fixes that I can try?
> Increasing work_mem, shared_buffers, changing random_page_cost and /
> or seq_page_cost.
> Log long running queries and run explain analyze on any that show up very often.
> But for real performance, you do often have to "get into the queries"
> because an inefficient query may be something you can cut down to
> 1/10000th the run time with a simple change, and often that change is
> impossible to make by tuning the db, only the query can be tuned. It
> might be something simple like you need to cast a type to match some
> other type. Hard to say without looking.
> When a 90Meg database is slow, it's almost always poorly written /
> non-optimized queries at the heart of it.
I stopped doing the nightly vacuum full and reindex. After 3 months
some queries would not complete within 2 minutes. Normally these take
less than 5 seconds. I tried vacuum without full and reindex, but the
problem was still there. Only vacuum full and reindex returned
performance to normal. Now I am back to my previous nightly full vacuum
Thank you for your time,
CEO and Chief Software Engineer
BS Physics, MS Chemical Engineering
HJBug Founder and President
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2011-02-28 19:30:08|
|Subject: Re: Thoroughly confused about time zones|
|Previous:||From: suresh ramasamy||Date: 2011-02-28 19:10:35|
|Subject: dear friend|