From: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com> |
Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Postgres Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [ SOLVED ] select count(*) very slow on an already |
Date: | 2004-04-15 10:59:04 |
Message-ID: | 407E6AF8.7643C61F@t1.unisoftbg.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi ,
I am not sure, but I remember the same problem.
It was ot 7.3.x version and and I needet to reindex the table.
I think after 7.4 vacuum also work correct with reindex.
But I am not sure.
regards,
ivan.
Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The problem was solved by reloading the Table.
> the query now takes only 3 seconds. But that is
> not a solution.
>
> The problem is that such phenomenon obscures our
> judgement used in optimising queries and database.
>
> If a query runs slow we really cant tell if its a problem
> with query itself , hardware or dead rows.
>
> I already did vacumm full on the table but it still did not
> have that effect on performance.
> In fact the last figures were after doing a vacuum full.
>
> Can there be any more elegent solution to this problem.
>
> Regds
> Mallah.
>
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> >On Thursday 15 April 2004 08:10, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The problem is that i want to know if i need a Hardware upgrade
> >>at the moment.
> >>
> >>Eg i have another table rfis which contains ~ .6 million records.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>SELECT count(*) from rfis where sender_uid > 0;
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Time: 117560.635 ms
> >>
> >>Which is approximate 4804 records per second. Is it an acceptable
> >>performance on the hardware below:
> >>
> >>RAM: 2 GB
> >>DISKS: ultra160 , 10 K , 18 GB
> >>Processor: 2* 2.0 Ghz Xeon
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hmm - doesn't seem good, does it? If you run it again, is it much faster
> >(since the data should be cached then)? What does "vmstat 10" show while
> >you're running the query?
> >
> >One thing you should have done is read the performance tuning guide at:
> > http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/index.php
> >The default values are very conservative, and you will need to change them.
> >
> >
> >
> >>What kind of upgrades shoud be put on the server for it to become
> >>reasonable fast.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If you've only got one disk, then a second disk for OS/logging. Difficult to
> >say more without knowing numbers of users/activity etc.
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2004-04-15 11:35:45 | Re: [ SOLVED ] select count(*) very slow on an already |
Previous Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2004-04-15 10:31:26 | Re: select count(*) very slow on an already vacuumed table. |