From: | Henrik <henke(at)mac(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Nested loop in simple query taking long time |
Date: | 2007-12-07 09:17:34 |
Message-ID: | 0B6E17E9-DE1B-424D-8757-1C95646FD3DA@mac.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
6 dec 2007 kl. 20.26 skrev Alvaro Herrera:
> Henrik wrote:
>
>> I think I have a clue why its so off. We update a value in that
>> table about
>> 2 - 3 million times per night and as update creates a new row it
>> becomes
>> bloated pretty fast. The table hade a size of 765 MB including
>> indexes and
>> after vacuum full and reindex it went down to 80kB... I guess I need
>> routine reindex on this table. Thank god is not big. :)
>
> I suggest you put a lone VACUUM on that table in cron, say once
> every 5
> minutes, and you should be fine. You shouldn't need a reindex at all.
Instead of cron can't I just have really aggressive autovacuum
settings on this table?
Thanks,
Henke
>
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera http://www.PlanetPostgreSQL.org/
> "Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a
> rumor that
> you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
> It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pourwelle)
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that
> your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Glyn Astill | 2007-12-07 09:30:59 | Re: Replication Monitoring |
Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2007-12-07 08:52:10 | Re: libpq messages language |