Re: should i expected performance degradation over time

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Anibal David Acosta <aa(at)devshock(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: should i expected performance degradation over time
Date: 2011-09-10 18:30:20
Message-ID: CAOR=d=17qPEx5O1W3jga8wknKvv+7O4u6JiugJS30vyciz3vBQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Anibal David Acosta <aa(at)devshock(dot)com> wrote:
> Sometimes I read that postgres performance is degraded over the time and
> something people talk about backup and restore database solve the problem.
>
> It is really true?

Yes and no. If you let things get out of hand, a backup and restore
may be your best choice.

> I have postgres 9.0 on a windows machine with The autovacuum is ON

Good start

> Transactional table has about 4 millions of rows inserted per day.
>
> In the midnight all rows are moved to a historical table and in the
> historical table rows are about 2 months, any transaction older than 2
> months are deleted daily.

You should look into table partitioning then. but as long as vacuum
keeps up you're probably still ok. Look at the check_postgresql.pl
script by the same guy who wrote Bucardo. It'll keep you advised of
how much bloat your tables have.

> So, my question is, if Should I expect same performance over time (example:
> after 1 year) or should I expect a degradation and must implements come
> technics like backup restore every certain time?

If you maintain your db properly, performance should stay good. If
you ignore bloat issues you might have some issues.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hany ABOU-GHOURY 2011-09-11 10:54:06 Databases optimization
Previous Message Andy Colson 2011-09-10 17:20:41 Re: should i expected performance degradation over time