| From: | "Edoardo" <eddy(at)axa(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: R: R: slow seqscan after vacuum analize |
| Date: | 2004-02-06 00:12:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20040206001228.M48308@axa.it |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:33:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote
> "Edoardo Ceccarelli" <eddy(at)axa(dot)it> writes:
> > Given a query that HAS to be executed with a seqscan I have noticed an
> > increase in time comparing before and after the vacuum.
>
> This is really hard to believe --- I cannot think of any mechanism that
> would result in that effect. Unless the vacuum were flushing the
> kernel's disk cache, but the effects of that would only persist for one
> scan. You did say that the increased time is repeatable if you do
> multiple seqscans after the vacuum?
>
> regards, tom lane
Yes, I can assure you that was repeatable and has disappeared only after a
VACUUM FULL ANALYZE
it was something really stable in it's bad behaviour. I am going to make some
test soon and I will post here the results.
Best Regards
Edoardo
--
The net spotter (http://expot.it)
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Lane | 2004-02-06 03:48:35 | Drop indexes inside transaction? |
| Previous Message | Mark Harrison | 2004-02-05 21:53:02 | pg-watchdog |