| From: | Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | p prince <pprince127(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: how can a couple of expensive queries drag my system down? |
| Date: | 2008-03-27 04:09:13 |
| Message-ID: | 47EB1DE9.5010507@Sheeky.Biz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, p prince <pprince127(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> is this 'normal'? (loaded question I know)
>> Should I be looking to offload expensive reporting queries to read-only
>> replicants of my database?
>
> Yes, definitely look into setting up something like a slony slave
> that's used for reporting queries. The nice thing about this setup is
> you only need to replicate the tables you run reports against.
>
I would look at fixing the slow queries so that they aren't a problem first.
I'm sure if you send in your queries and table defs you can get some
useful feedback here.
If there is no way of improving them then look at a reporting slave.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-03-27 04:57:11 | Re: how can a couple of expensive queries drag my system down? |
| Previous Message | Peter Koczan | 2008-03-26 23:48:56 | Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM |