X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DE052902 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:00:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39364-04 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:00:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4E1528A7 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:00:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:dc03:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DfKxp-0002bX-TF for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:00:40 +0200 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1DfKxp-0000NH-00 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:00:37 +0200 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:00:37 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: slow growing table Message-ID: <20050606170037.GA1177@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <6556952605060609485c622403@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6556952605060609485c622403@mail.gmail.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.11.8 on a i686 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.021 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/122 X-Sequence-Number: 12759 On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:48:26AM -0700, Jone C wrote: > When the table is new it's very fast, towards the end of the month > it's taking almost 10 times longer, yet I'm deleting and COPYing in > the same amount of data. Other operations on this table slow down, > too, that were fast before using the same criteria. You might have a problem with index bloat. Could you try REINDEXing the indexes on the table and see if that makes a difference? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/