| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karl Wright <kwright(at)metacarta(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access |
| Date: | 2007-06-20 17:57:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20070620175758.GP30369@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Karl Wright wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Karl Wright wrote:
> >
> >>(b) the performance of individual queries had already degraded
> >>significantly in the same manner as what I'd seen before.
> >
> >You didn't answer whether you had smaller, more frequently updated
> >tables that need more vacuuming. This comment makes me think you do. I
> >think what you should be looking at is whether you can forget vacuuming
> >the whole database in one go, and make it more granular.
>
> I am afraid that I did answer this. My largest tables are the ones
> continually being updated. The smaller ones are updated only infrequently.
Can you afford to vacuum them in parallel?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC
"Java is clearly an example of money oriented programming" (A. Stepanov)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl Wright | 2007-06-20 18:01:34 | Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access |
| Previous Message | Karl Wright | 2007-06-20 17:55:20 | Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access |