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

Re: Defining performance.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paul Lathrop <plathrop(at)squaretrade(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Defining performance.
Date: 2006-12-01 00:26:36
Message-ID: 8312.1164932796@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Paul Lathrop <plathrop(at)squaretrade(dot)com> writes:
> ... When I joined the company last year, the databases were
> deployed on 12-disk RAID5 arrays on dual-proc AMD machines with 4Gb of
> RAM, running Debian Woody and Postgres 7.2. These systems seemed to
> suffer a gradually decreasing performance accompanied by a gradually
> growing disk space usage. The DBA had come to the conclusion that the
> VACUUM command did/does not work on these systems, because even after a
> VACUUM FULL, the size of the database was continually increasing.

The very first thing you need to do is get off 7.2.

After that, I'd recommend looking at *not* using VACUUM FULL.  FULL is
actually counterproductive in a lot of scenarios, because it shrinks the
tables at the price of bloating the indexes.  And 7.2's poor ability to
reuse index space turns that into a double whammy.  Have you checked
into the relative sizes of tables and indexes and tracked the trend over
time?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: nospamDate: 2006-12-01 00:37:12
Subject: Re: Defining performance.
Previous:From: Tobias BroxDate: 2006-12-01 00:05:37
Subject: Re: Defining performance.

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