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

Re: Degrading performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: Mindaugas Riauba <mind(at)bi(dot)lt>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Degrading performance
Date: 2003-06-02 17:25:22
Message-ID: 9538.1054574722@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> INFO:  Rel ifdata: Pages: 4887 --> 17; Tuple(s) moved: 776.
>>> CPU 0.30s/0.35u sec elapsed 1.65 sec.
>> 
>> That says you waited way too long to vacuum --- over two hundred update
>> cycles, evidently.

> Don't forget to crank up your fsm settings in $PGDATA/postgresql.conf as 
> well.

The table's not very big though.  As long as he keeps after it with
sufficiently-frequent vacuuming, it won't need much FSM space.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-06-02 17:42:48
Subject: Re: Degrading performance
Previous:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-06-02 16:34:43
Subject: Re: Degrading performance

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