Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan

From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: Jeremy Haile <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>
Cc: Chad Wagner <chad(dot)wagner(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
Date: 2007-01-17 18:35:11
Message-ID: 1169058911.9586.46.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:28, Jeremy Haile wrote:
> > That's about 32% dead rows. Might be worth scheduling a vacuum full,
> > but it's not like I was afraid it might be. It looks to me like you
> > could probably use a faster I/O subsystem in that machine though.
>
> I'll try to schedule a full vacuum tonight. As far as I/O - it's using
> SAN over fiber. Not as fast as internal SCSI though...

Also, look at the thread going by about index bloat by 4x. You'll
likely want to reindex after a vacuum full since vacuum full doesn't
reclaim space in indexes and in fact often bloats indexes.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Haile 2007-01-17 18:46:40 Re: PG8.2.1 choosing slow seqscan over idx scan
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2007-01-17 18:29:09 Re: Monitoring Transaction Log size