| From: | Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael L (dot) Hostbaek" <mich(at)the-lab(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-sql (at) postgresql (dot) org" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance issue |
| Date: | 2004-04-27 11:42:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20040427124213.A11703@bacon |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On 27/04/2004 10:12 Michael L. Hostbaek wrote:
> [snip]
> Is this normal ? If I run the same select on another table in the same
> database with ~40.000 rows, it takes approx 820.00ms...
You would probably get better answers on the correct list but my guess is
that your fsm setting might be too low for the number of dead tuples you
are trying to reclaim so the vacuum is not clearing all the dead stuff
out. There's plenty of stuff about this in the archives and the docs.
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Achilleus Mantzios | 2004-04-27 11:51:54 | Re: How to get binary value for an Integer |
| Previous Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2004-04-27 10:16:02 | Re: Logical comparison on Strings |