Re: Very long deletion time on a 200 GB database

From: Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com>
To: "Reuven M(dot) Lerner" <reuven(at)lerner(dot)co(dot)il>
Cc: Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Very long deletion time on a 200 GB database
Date: 2012-02-24 08:22:21
Message-ID: CAEV0TzB=zeYBO_T-kcKgcSA4DwRJ6Ka5MPfDhZ_hZ8pWc40QbA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Reuven M. Lerner <reuven(at)lerner(dot)co(dot)il>wrote:

> Hi, everyone.
>
> So it turns out that we're not using 25 GB of virtual memory. (That's
> what I had been shown yesterday, and it was a bit surprising, to say the
> least...)
>
> A few statistics that I managed to get from the Windows developers/system
> administrators:
>
> - The machine has a total of 3.5 GB of RAM
> - shared_buffers was set to 256 MB (yes, MB!)
> - Virtual memory usage by our process is 3 MB (yes, MB)
> - CPU is virtually idle when running the deletes, using about 1% of CPU
> - No other processes are accessing the database when we're running the
> maintenance; there are a total of three server processes, but two are idle.
>

What is work_mem set to? If all the other values were set so low, I'd
expect work_mem to also be small, which could be causing all kind of disk
activity when steps don't fit into a work_mem segment.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Reuven M. Lerner 2012-02-24 12:37:30 Re: Very long deletion time on a 200 GB database
Previous Message Reuven M. Lerner 2012-02-24 06:39:48 Re: Very long deletion time on a 200 GB database