From: | Alex Howansky <alex(at)wankwood(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "critical mass" reached? |
Date: | 2001-03-13 15:18:34 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0103130901310.14106-100000@net-srv-0001.bvrd.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Presumably you're running vacuum analyze regularly (at least once a day I'd
> guess) so I can only suspect that something has tipped the balance in the
> cost estimations. Is there a particular query that's slow and can you post
> an EXPLAIN?
Oops, yes, sorry forgot to mention that. Vacuum analyze run nightly. There is
not just one particluar query that runs slow -- it's the database as a whole
(while apparently under the same average everyday load).
> Looks like you've ruled out damage to the DB. What happens if you delete 3
> million of the records in your log-table?
We haven't got that far yet. I was hoping to get some other ideas prior to
doing something so drastic, but we'll try it ...
> Six million _tables_ is a lot, but you're right 6M records is pretty small
> compared to what some people are using.
Oops again. I gotta stop trying to debug at 3am... :)
--
Alex Howansky
Wankwood Associates
http://www.wankwood.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Howansky | 2001-03-13 15:23:10 | Re: "critical mass" reached? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-13 15:16:56 | Re: display temp table structure? |