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

Re: pg_upgrade and statistics

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Daniel Farina" <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>,"Greg Stark" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Date: 2012-03-13 19:25:50
Message-ID: 4F5F58EE0200002500046246@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
 
>> That is 2.5 minutes.  How large is that database?
 
I dug around a little and found that we had turned on vacuum cost
limits on the central databases, because otherwise the web team
complained about performance during maintenance windows.  On the
county database we generally don't have users working all night, so
we do maintenance during off hours, and run without cost-based
limits.
 
When the full run completes, I'll try analyze on that table again,
in a session with the limits off.
 
Maybe vacuumdb should have an option to disable the limits, and we
recommend that after pg_upgrade?
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-03-13 19:27:28
Subject: Re: Potential reference miscounts and segfaults in plpython.c
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-03-13 19:24:11
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...

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