From: | Stéphane Schildknecht <stephane(dot)schildknecht(at)postgresqlfr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum goes worse |
Date: | 2007-10-16 15:26:15 |
Message-ID: | 4714D817.30701@postgresqlfr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane a écrit :
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Schildknecht?= <stephane(dot)schildknecht(at)postgresqlfr(dot)org> writes:
>
>> For some times, we have a vacuuming process on a specific table that
>> goes slower and slower. In fact, it took some 3 minutes a month ago, and
>> now it take almost 20 minutes. But, if one day it take so many time, it
>> is possible that on the day after it will only take 4 minutes...
>>
>
>
>> I know the table in concern had 450000 tuples two months ago and now has
>> more than 700000 tuples in it.
>>
>
> The real question is how often do rows get updated? I suspect you
> probably need to vacuum this table more than once a day.
>
>
To be honest, I suspect it too. But, I have been told by people using
that database they can't do vacuum more frequently than once in a day as
it increases the time to achieve concurrent operations.
That's also why they don't want to hear about autovacuum.
And finally that's why I'm looking for everything I can monitor to
obtain information to convince them they're wrong and I'm right ;-)
That's also why I am so disappointed vacuum doesn't give me these 4
hints lines.
Regards,
--
Stéphane SCHILDKNECHT
Président de PostgreSQLFr
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-16 15:30:31 | Re: Vacuum goes worse |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-16 15:22:48 | Re: using a stored proc that returns a result set in a complex SQL stmt |