| From: | felix <crucialfelix(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Really really slow select count(*) |
| Date: | 2011-02-07 01:55:57 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimONxqmK=Tf_qooO5=PKEEDMptZ6=rZ7ASmziX+@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
yeah, it already uses memcached with db save. nothing important in session
anyway
the session table is not the issue
and I never clustered that one or ever will
thanks for the tip, also the other one about HOT
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I have clustered that table, its still unbelievably slow.
>>>
>>
>> Did you actually delete the old entries before clustering it? if it's
>> still got 4G of old sessions or whatever in it, clustering ain't gonna
>> help.
>>
>
> Also, IMHO it is a lot better to store sessions in something like
> memcached, rather than imposing this rather large load on the main
> database...
>
> PS : if your site has been down for 6 hours, you can TRUNCATE your sessions
> table...
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2011-02-07 03:03:37 | Re: Really really slow select count(*) |
| Previous Message | felix | 2011-02-07 01:52:01 | Re: Really really slow select count(*) |