Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DAD9FA162 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:27:33 -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 30707-07 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:27:29 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA8A9F9FB2 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:27:28 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBDNRRGO013033; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:27:27 -0500 (EST) To: "Steven Flatt" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time In-reply-to: <357fa7590612131517q375fc0by50cb4257bcce7a94@mail.gmail.com> References: <357fa7590612130844q58ef3ca5q31e164f9b006e0fc@mail.gmail.com> <9315.1166030958@sss.pgh.pa.us> <357fa7590612131517q375fc0by50cb4257bcce7a94@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Steven Flatt" message dated "Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:17:41 -0500" Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:27:27 -0500 Message-ID: <13032.1166052447@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/351 X-Sequence-Number: 22407 "Steven Flatt" writes: > Having said that, what kinds of things should I be looking for that could > deteriorate/bloat over time? Ordinarily the culprit might be infrequent > vacuuming or analyzing, but that wouldn't be corrected by a restart of > Postgres. In our case, restarting Postgres gives us a huge performance > improvement (for a short while, anyways). Do you actually need to restart the postmaster, or is just starting a fresh session (fresh backend) sufficient? And again, have you monitored the backend process to see if it's bloating memory-wise or open-file-wise? regards, tom lane