| From: | Antoine <melser(dot)anton(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "me(at)alternize(dot)com" <me(at)alternize(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: new to postgres (and db management) and performance already a problem :-( |
| Date: | 2006-01-17 08:14:27 |
| Message-ID: | 92d3a4950601170014m352c75bes@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 17/01/06, me(at)alternize(dot)com <me(at)alternize(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Try a), b), and c) in order on the "offending" tables as they address
> > the problem at increasing cost...
>
> thanks alot for the detailed information! the entire concept of vacuum
> isn't
> yet that clear to me, so your explanations and hints are very much
> appreciated. i'll defenitely try these steps this weekend when the next
> full
> vacuum was scheduled :-)
Thanks guys, that pretty much answered my question(s) too. I have a sneaking
suspicion that vacuuming won't do too much for us however... now that I
think about it - we do very little removing, pretty much only inserts and
selects. I will give it a vacuum full and see what happens.
Cheers
Antoine
--
This is where I should put some witty comment.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marcos | 2006-01-17 09:04:53 | Use of Stored Procedures and |
| Previous Message | me | 2006-01-17 04:13:09 | Re: new to postgres (and db management) and performance already a problem :-( |