From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kim <kim@myemma.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2upgrade
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:14:34 +0000
Message-ID: <1168557275.3990.49.camel@silverbirch.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5414.1168549900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <45A671CD.1050706@myemma.com>
<27939.1168539652@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<45A68C74.4080405@myemma.com>
<28949.1168544710@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1168548006.3951.564.camel@silverbirch.site>
<5414.1168549900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 16:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > It's not clear to me how this fix will alter the INSERT issue Kim
> > mentions.
>
> I didn't say that it would; we have no information on the INSERT issue,
> so I'm just concentrating on the problem that he did provide info on.
OK.
> I'm frankly not real surprised that there are performance issues with
> such a huge pg_class; it's not a regime that anyone's spent any time
> optimizing.
Yeh, I saw a pg_class that big once, but it just needed a VACUUM.
Temp relations still make pg_class entried don't they? Is that on the
TODO list to change?
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, kim@myemma.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2upgrade
In-Reply-To: <1168557275.3990.49.camel@silverbirch.site>
* 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