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.
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 |