| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dan Armbrust" <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum output question |
| Date: | 2008-11-14 03:23:05 |
| Message-ID: | 16922.1226632985@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Dan Armbrust" <daniel(dot)armbrust(dot)list(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Why did those particular tables and indexes take _so_ long to vacuum?
> Perhaps we have a disk level IO problem on this system?
FWIW, I agree with Scott that you seem to have an overstressed I/O
system. It's hard to tell why from here.
> Can someone tell me what 'CPU 44.46s/11.82u sec' means? I have a
> guess, but I'm not sure.
That's the vacuum process's system and user CPU-time consumption as
reported by getrusage(2). It's evidently only a minor component of the
elapsed runtime, though, so you need to be looking at I/O costs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-11-14 04:02:23 | Re: backup and permissions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-14 02:57:56 | Re: Tweaking PG (again) |