| From: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | gavin(at)ipalsoftware(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Large table performance and vacuum |
| Date: | 2004-03-05 22:48:00 |
| Message-ID: | 404903A0.7040701@mascari.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Scott <gavin(at)ipalsoftware(dot)com> writes:
>
>>The problem is the query "SELECT * FROM log ORDER BY hid
>>LIMIT 1;", which both EXPLAIN and EXPLAIN ANALYZE show as
>>Limit / Index Scan on hid_idx. This was very fast before we
>>started deleting out old log entries the table, but has
>>started taking an extremely long time, about 341 seconds.
>
>
> I'm suspecting that you need to REINDEX hid_idx. This is an
> aspect of the pre-7.4 "index bloat" problem: the left end of the index
> now consists of entirely-empty pages, which not only occupy space but
> take time to scan through for a query like this.
Assuming a "normal" usage pattern, regular VACUUMing, and no
instances of corrupted indexes, are there any scenarios in which one
would need to REINDEX either user or system tables post 7.4?
Mike Mascari
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-05 23:06:21 | Re: Large table performance and vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-05 22:07:55 | Re: Large table performance and vacuum |