Re: 12 hour table vacuums

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Ron St-Pierre <ron(dot)pgsql(at)shaw(dot)ca>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Date: 2007-10-23 17:41:13
Message-ID: 20071023104113.1f4d0aa0@scratch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:00:05 -0700
Ron St-Pierre <ron(dot)pgsql(at)shaw(dot)ca> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Ron St-Pierre wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Okay, here's our system:
> >> postgres 8.1.4
> >>
> >
> > Upgrade to 8.1.10
> >
> Any particular fixes in 8.1.10 that would help with this?
> >
> >> Here's the table information:
> >> The table has 140,000 rows, 130 columns (mostly NUMERIC), 60
> >> indexes.
> >
> > 60 indexes? You gotta be kidding. You really have 60 columns on
> > which to scan?
> >
> >
> Really. 60 indexes. They're the most commonly requested columns for
> company information (we believe). Any ideas on testing our
> assumptions about that? I would like to know definitively what are
> the most popular columns. Do you think that rules would be a good
> approach for this? (Sorry if I'm getting way off topic here)

I suggest you:

1. Turn on stats and start looking in the stats columns to see what
indexes are actually being used.

2. Strongly review your normalization :)

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-10-23 18:03:14 Re: 12 hour table vacuums
Previous Message Ron St-Pierre 2007-10-23 17:00:05 Re: 12 hour table vacuums