| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tim Perdue <tperdue(at)valinux(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Eternal vacuuming.... |
| Date: | 2000-05-11 19:04:43 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0005111503340.82196-100000@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Tim Perdue wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
> > what does a 'vacuum verbose' show for you? and youa ren't doing a 'vacuum
> > analyze', are you?
>
> I believe I did 'vacuum analyze'. If info from 'vacuum verbose' would be
> useful to your team, I can try to set up and reproduce this. I would
> have to create a 3-million row table with an index on it, then delete
> 832,000 rows which I did last nite, then try again.
Okay, vacuum analyze is, from my experiences, atrociously slow ... it
*feels* faster, at least, if you do a simple vacuum first, then do the
analyze, but that might be just perception ...
Can you try just a simple 'vacuum verbose' first, without the analyze, and
see if that also takes 12hrs?
Also, what are you running this on? Memory? CPU?
Marc G. Fournier scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
scrappy(at){postgresql|isc}.org ICQ#7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-05-11 19:22:13 | Pgsql core contract? |
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-05-11 18:47:00 | Re: Orphaned locks in 7.0? |