From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Gábriel Ákos <akos(dot)gabriel(at)i-logic(dot)hu> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: count(*) performance |
Date: | 2006-03-27 19:21:38 |
Message-ID: | 44283B42.7060803@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Gábriel Ákos wrote:
> Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> Gabriel,
>>
>> On 3/27/06 10:05 AM, "Gábriel Ákos" <akos(dot)gabriel(at)i-logic(dot)hu> wrote:
>>
>>> That gave me an idea. I thought that autovacuum is doing it right, but I
>>> issued a vacuum full analyze verbose , and it worked all the day.
>>> After that I've tweaked memory settings a bit too (more fsm_pages)
>>
>> Oops! I replied to your disk speed before I saw this.
>>
>> The only thing is - you probably don't want to do a "vacuum full", but
>> rather a simple "vacuum" should be enough.
>
> I thought that too. Autovacuum is running on our system but it didn't do
> the trick. Anyway the issue is solved, thank you all for helping. :)
Yeah, it would be nice of autovacuum had some way of raising a flag to
the admin that given current settings (thresholds, FSM etc...), it's not
keeping up with the activity. I don't know how to do this, but I hope
someone else has some good ideas.
Matt
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-03-27 19:35:28 | Re: count(*) performance |
Previous Message | Brendan Duddridge | 2006-03-27 19:20:54 | Re: count(*) performance |