Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: sloooow query

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: <marie(dot)tuite(at)edisonaffiliates(dot)com>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sloooow query
Date: 2002-10-07 20:44:31
Message-ID: 200210071344.31233.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-performance
Marie,

> I ran the vacuum for selected tables.  It looks fine, I think, but I amn't
> always sure what I am reading in output.

So much for the easy answer.   The reason I wanted to see a VACUUM FULL is 
that the query on the "bad" database is taking a long time to return even the 
first row of many of its sub-parts.  This is usually the result of not 
running VACUUM FULL after a lot of deletions.

However, your problem apparently is something else.   Is is possible that 
there is some kind of disk access problem for the bad database copy?  Is 
there a difference in where its files are physically located?


-- 
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2002-10-07 20:50:27
Subject: Re: sloooow query
Previous:From: Marie G. TuiteDate: 2002-10-07 20:34:11
Subject: Re: sloooow query

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2002-10-07 20:50:27
Subject: Re: sloooow query
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-10-07 20:40:36
Subject: Re: PLTCL return_null crash...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group