From: | Richard Yen <dba(at)richyen(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Krzysztof Kardas <krzychk2(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL with Zabbix - problem of newbe |
Date: | 2010-04-08 20:08:01 |
Message-ID: | 16620962-4539-4B87-A6BE-A1A8CB93E14D@richyen.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Kind of off-topic, but I've found that putting the history table on a separate spindle (using a separate tablespace) also helps improve performance.
--Richard
On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/4/8 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> previous to 8.2, to get good performance on zabbix you need to
>> aggressively vacuum the heavily updated tables yourself.
>
> Generally if you DON'T vacuum aggressively enough, then vacuums will
> take a really long and painful amount of time, perhaps accounting for
> the "hang" the OP observed. There's really no help for it but to
> sweat it out once, and then do it frequently enough afterward that it
> doesn't become a problem.
>
> ...Robert
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | norn | 2010-04-09 01:13:33 | Re: significant slow down with various LIMIT |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-08 19:44:21 | Re: PostgreSQL with Zabbix - problem of newbe |