From: | Philip Molter <philip(at)datafoundry(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Feite Brekeveld <feite(dot)brekeveld(at)osiris-it(dot)nl> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: vacuum job taking very long time to complete |
Date: | 2001-06-28 14:44:20 |
Message-ID: | 20010628094420.N12723@datafoundry.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:10:05PM +0200, Feite Brekeveld wrote:
: Hi,
:
: I've started a vacuumdb on a database having 2 large tables of approx.
: 3,800,000 records each. The database size is approx . 2Gbyte
I'm seeing a similar slowdown, but on much smaller tables (roughly
10,000 and 30,000 rows apiece). It takes up to a minute to analyze the
10,000 row table (see other messages to this list about the constantly
updating nature of the application using this database). The weird
thing is that these vacuums took barely any time before a recent
required restart of the database. Nothing's changed in the config, yet
now the vacuums take a while now. I'm not sure what to make of it.
The system doesn't appear to be under any sort of increased burden (in
fact, postgres is using barely any resources during the analyze).
As Austin Powers would say, "That's not right ..."
* Philip Molter
* DataFoundry.net
* http://www.datafoundry.net/
* philip(at)datafoundry(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-06-28 14:45:30 | Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Gregory Wood | 2001-06-28 14:07:02 | Re: Suggested improvement : Adjust SEQUENCES to accept an INCREMENT of functionname(parameters) instead of an integer |