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

Re: count(*) performance

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 (view raw or flat)
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


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-03-27 19:35:28
Subject: Re: count(*) performance
Previous:From: Brendan DuddridgeDate: 2006-03-27 19:20:54
Subject: Re: count(*) performance

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