From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabio Esposito <nfesposi(at)sourceweave(dot)net> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres eating CPU on HP9000 |
Date: | 2004-03-27 00:05:55 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0403261705140.9396-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Fabio Esposito wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> > > It maintains 48hours of data, so its not a large database; roughly
> > > <600mbs. We do this by running a housekeeping program in a cron job.
> > > It deletes all data older then 48hours, then vaccuum analyzes. It will
> > > also preform a reindex if the option is set before it vaccuum's.
> > >
> > This almost sounds like a problem (fixed in 7.4 I believe) where some
> > system catalog indexes would get huge over time, and couldn't be vacuumed
> > or reindexed while the database was up in multi-user mode.
> >
> > I'll defer to Tom or Bruce or somebody to say if my guess is even close...
> >
> We haven't tried 7.4, I will experiment with it next week, I hope it
> will be that simple.
In the meantime, a simple dump - reload into a test box running your
current version may provide some insight. If it fixes the problem, then
you likely do have some kind of issue with index / table growth that isn't
being addressed by vacuuming.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-27 00:26:02 | Re: postgres eating CPU on HP9000 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-26 23:15:01 | Re: bigint index not used |