From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: slow query |
Date: | 2007-04-05 13:33:16 |
Message-ID: | 20070405133316.GC6464@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 01:47:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ shrug... ] If the damage is already done, lazy VACUUM won't fix it.
>
Also, if there are enough open transactions at any one time and
sufficient churn in the table, lazy VACUUM may not be able to keep
up. (We had that experience with a table that was updated _very
very_ often. The answer turned out to be to update less often.
Aggregating queries that could use an index over a large number of
"expired" rows worked better than seqscans over large numbers of dead
tuples.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
Information security isn't a technological problem. It's an economics
problem.
--Bruce Schneier
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ezequias | 2007-04-05 14:50:00 | LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection |
Previous Message | A. Kretschmer | 2007-04-05 10:05:55 | Re: Insert only if not found |