From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scot Kreienkamp <SKreien(at)la-z-boy(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Scott Mead <scott(dot)lists(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum question |
Date: | 2010-03-09 14:56:22 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d11003090656w63d1c6a4u4b8e538a83d7e81f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Scot Kreienkamp <SKreien(at)la-z-boy(dot)com> wrote:
> Wish I could Tom. I need a non-production, read-write copy of the
> database that is updated every 1-2 hours from production. I don't set
> this requirement, the business does. I just have to do it if it's
> technically possible.
>
> I found a way to do it very easily using LVM snapshots and WAL log
> shipping, but the net effect is I'm bringing a new LVM snapshot copy of
> the database out of recovery every 1-2 hours. That means I'd have to
> spend 15 minutes, or one-quarter of the time, doing an analyze every
> time I refresh the database. That's fairly painful. The LVM snap and
> restart only takes 1-2 minutes right now.
>
> If you have any other ideas how I can accomplish or improve this I'm all
> ears.
I'm gonna take a scientific wild-assed guess that the real issue here
is caching, or more specifically, lack thereof when you first start up
your copy of the db.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Mead | 2010-03-09 15:01:26 | Re: autovacuum question |
Previous Message | Scot Kreienkamp | 2010-03-09 14:48:36 | Re: autovacuum question |