Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270799FA2CA for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:58:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09838-05 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:58:16 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from servata.com (ip-216-152-249-241.servata.com [216.152.249.241]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A9B9FA282 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:58:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from [209.162.219.253] (helo=dogma.v10.wvs) by servata.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.50) id 1Gpwit-0003ju-Rn; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:57:52 -0800 Subject: Re: Defining performance. From: Jeff Davis To: Tobias Brox Cc: Paul Lathrop , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20061201000537.GA15466@oppetid.no> References: <456F624F.2090906@squaretrade.com> <20061201000537.GA15466@oppetid.no> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:57:54 -0800 Message-Id: <1164934674.7773.148.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/279 X-Sequence-Number: 22049 On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 01:05 +0100, Tobias Brox wrote: > > However, we still are suffering a gradual decrease in performance over > > time - or so the application engineers claim. The DBA and I have been > > banging our heads against this for a month. > > We're having the same issues, so we do the dumping and restoring every > now and then to be sure everything is properly cleaned up. With 8.1. > What's causing that? Is it index bloat? I would think a REINDEX would avoid having to dump/restore, right? A CLUSTER might also be necessary, depending on what kind of performance degradation you're experiencing. Am I missing something? Regards, Jeff Davis