Re: autovacuum question

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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