On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Harold A. Giménez
> I work with Daniel Farina and was the other engineer who "discovered" this,
> once again. That is, I got bit by it and have been running TRUNCATE on my
> test suites for years.
Hi Daniel and Harold,
I don't know if you followed this thread over into the -hacker mailing list.
There was some bookkeeping code that was N^2 in the number of
truncations performed during any given checkpoint cycle. That has
been fixed in 9.2Beta3.
I suspect that this was the root cause of the problem you encountered.
If you are in a position to retest using 9.2Beta3
(http://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1405/), I'd be interested to
know if it does make truncations comparable in speed to unqualified
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Joseph Marlin||Date: 2012-08-10 17:35:16|
|Subject: Increasing WAL usage followed by sudden drop|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Janes||Date: 2012-08-09 16:17:20|
|Subject: Re: Slow query: Select all buildings that have >1
pharmacies and >1 schools within 1000m|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2012-08-09 18:21:25|
|Subject: Re: proposal - assign result of query to psql variable|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-08-09 17:48:03|
|Subject: Re: [WIP] Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for