public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedvacuum analyze affecting query performance
3+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* vacuum analyze affecting query performance
@ 2017-07-10 17:25 rverghese <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: rverghese @ 2017-07-10 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
We are on Postgres 9.5, and have been running a daily vacuum analyze on the
entire database since 8.2
The data has grown exponentially since, and we are seeing that queries are
now being significantly affected while the vacuum analyze runs. The query
database is a Slony slave.
So the question is, is this typical behavior and should we still be running
a daily vacuum analyze on the database?
Thanks!
RV
--
View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/vacuum-analyze-affecting-query-performance-tp5970681.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: vacuum analyze affecting query performance
@ 2017-07-11 07:15 Albe Laurenz <[email protected]>
parent: rverghese <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Albe Laurenz @ 2017-07-11 07:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'rverghese *EXTERN*' <[email protected]>; pgsql-performance
rverghese wrote:
> We are on Postgres 9.5, and have been running a daily vacuum analyze on the
> entire database since 8.2
> The data has grown exponentially since, and we are seeing that queries are
> now being significantly affected while the vacuum analyze runs. The query
> database is a Slony slave.
> So the question is, is this typical behavior and should we still be running
> a daily vacuum analyze on the database?
While VACUUM runs on tables, you can expect performance to get worse,
mostly because of contention for I/O resources (is that the case for you?).
Autovacuum has become *much* better since PostgreSQL 8.2.
If you cannot find a "quiet time" during which you can keep running your
daily VACUUM without causing problems, don't do it and go with autovacuum
by all means.
Autovacuum is less disruptive than normal VACUUM, it is designed to not
hog resources.
If the database is very busy and autovacuum has problems keeping up,
tune it to be more aggressive (and it will still be less disruptive
than a manual VACUUM).
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: vacuum analyze affecting query performance
@ 2017-07-11 15:57 rverghese <[email protected]>
parent: Albe Laurenz <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: rverghese @ 2017-07-11 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Thanks for the info!
--
View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/vacuum-analyze-affecting-query-performance-tp5970681p5970830.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-07-11 15:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-07-10 17:25 vacuum analyze affecting query performance rverghese <[email protected]>
2017-07-11 07:15 ` Albe Laurenz <[email protected]>
2017-07-11 15:57 ` rverghese <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox