From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:16:23 -0400
Message-ID: <9815.1222690583@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b6e8f2e80809290237p7685dbcfm9d5c886ba225b956@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b6e8f2e80809290237p7685dbcfm9d5c886ba225b956@mail.gmail.com>
"Peter Kovacs" <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com> writes:
> We have a number of automated performance tests (to test our own code)
> involving PostgreSQL. Test cases are supposed to drop and recreate
> tables each time they run.
> The problem is that some of the tests show a linear performance
> degradation overtime. (We have data for three months back in the
> past.) We have established that some element(s) of our test
> environment must be the culprit for the degradation. As rebooting the
> test machine didn't revert speeds to baselines recorded three months
> ago, we have turned our attention to the database as the only element
> of the environment which is persistent across reboots. Recreating the
> entire PGSQL cluster did cause speeds to revert to baselines.
What it sounds like to me is that you're not vacuuming the system
catalogs, which are getting bloated with dead rows about all those
dropped tables.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Do we need vacuuming when tables are regularly dropped?
In-Reply-To: <9815.1222690583@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox