Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: "Thomas Andrews" <tandrews(at)soliantconsulting(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Mark Lewis" <mark(dot)lewis(at)mir3(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date: 2007-06-04 20:21:18
Message-ID: op.tteytsyycigqcu@apollo13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> can tell you our vacuum every night is taking 2 hours and that disk IO is
> the real killer - the CPU rarely gets higher than 20% or so.

How many gigabytes of stuff do you have in this database ?
( du -sh on the *right* directory will suffice, don't include the logs
etc, aim for data/base/oid)

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2007-06-04 20:22:35 Re: dbt2 NOTPM numbers
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-06-04 20:20:55 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?