| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <marie(dot)tuite(at)edisonaffiliates(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sloooow query |
| Date: | 2002-10-07 20:44:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200210071344.31233.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Marie,
> I ran the vacuum for selected tables. It looks fine, I think, but I amn't
> always sure what I am reading in output.
So much for the easy answer. The reason I wanted to see a VACUUM FULL is
that the query on the "bad" database is taking a long time to return even the
first row of many of its sub-parts. This is usually the result of not
running VACUUM FULL after a lot of deletions.
However, your problem apparently is something else. Is is possible that
there is some kind of disk access problem for the bad database copy? Is
there a difference in where its files are physically located?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2002-10-07 20:50:27 | Re: sloooow query |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-07 20:40:36 | Re: PLTCL return_null crash... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2002-10-07 20:50:27 | Re: sloooow query |
| Previous Message | Marie G. Tuite | 2002-10-07 20:34:11 | Re: sloooow query |