From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)unicell(dot)co(dot)il>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question about optimizing access to a table. |
Date: | 2013-12-10 18:55:23 |
Message-ID: | 1386701723.64824.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)unicell(dot)co(dot)il> wrote:
> The problem starts when our partner has some glitch, under high
> load, and fails to send back a few hundred thousand reports. In
> that case, the table grows to a few hundred records, and they are
> not deleted until they hit their expiry date, at which point the
> "garbage collector" takes care of them and everything goes back
> to normal. When it contains hundreds of thousands of records,
> performance deteriorates considerably-
First, make sure that you are on the latest minor release of
whatever major release you are running. There were some serious
problems with autovacuum's table truncation when a table was used
as a queue and size fluctuated. These are fixed in the latest set
of minor releases.
If that doesn't clear up the problem, please post an actual slow
query to the pgsql-performance list, with its EXPLAIN ANALYZE
output and other details, as suggested here:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions
People will be able to provide more useful and specific advice if
they have the additional detail.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-12-10 18:55:45 | Re: Question about optimizing access to a table. |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma | 2013-12-10 18:18:54 | Re: client that supports editing views |