From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | Ruben Rubio <ruben(at)rentalia(dot)com>, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, Chris Mair <chris(at)1006(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [Solved] Postgres performance problem |
Date: | 2007-08-30 18:07:20 |
Message-ID: | 46D70758.6010507@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Decibel! wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:50:04AM +0200, Ruben Rubio wrote:
>> As you may know, I do a vacuum full and a reindex database each day. I
>> have logs that confirm that its done and I can check that everything was
>> fine.
>>
>> So, this morning, I stopped the website, I stopped database, started it
>> again. (I was around 200 days without restarting), then I vacuum
>> database and reindex it (Same command as everyday) . Restart again, and
>> run again the website.
>>
>> Now seems its working fine. But I really does not know where is the
>> problem. Seems vacuum its not working fine? Maybe database should need
>> a restart? I really don't know.
>
> No, it sounds to me like you just weren't vacuuming aggressively enough
> to keep up with demand.
Actually , I think it sounds like a stray long-lived transaction.
Ruben - vacuum can't recover rows if another transaction might be able
to see them. So, if you have a connection that issues BEGIN and sits
there for 200 days you can end up with a lot of bloat in your database.
Now, there's no way to prove that since you've restarted the
database-server, but keep an eye on it.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Lewis | 2007-08-30 18:08:47 | Re: [Solved] Postgres performance problem |
Previous Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-30 17:31:51 | Re: [Solved] Postgres performance problem |