Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access

From: Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Karl Wright <kwright(at)metacarta(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Date: 2007-06-19 15:45:49
Message-ID: cone.1182267949.154012.90929.5001@35st.simplicato.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Alvaro Herrera writes:

> How large is the database? I must admit I have never seen a database
> that took 4 days to vacuum. This could mean that your database is
> humongous, or that the vacuum strategy is wrong for some reason.

Specially with 16GB of RAM.

I have a setup with several databases (the largest of which is 1TB database)
and I do a nightly vacuum analyze for ALL databases. It takes about 22
hours. And this is with constant updates to the large 1TB database. This is
with Postgresql 8.1.3

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-06-19 15:46:20 Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Previous Message Francisco Reyes 2007-06-19 15:40:44 Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access