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 9537F5286E for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:27:40 -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 30152-01 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:27:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mr1.surnet.cl (smtp1.surnet.cl [216.155.73.162]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07D352806 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:27:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from smtp1.surnet.cl (216.155.73.168) by mr1.surnet.cl (7.0.031.3) id 42587EDE012D2108 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:26:59 -0400 Received: from smtp1.surnet.cl (mr1.surnet.cl []) by mr1.surnet.cl ([216.155.73.168]); Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:26:58 +0000 Received: from cluster.surnet.cl (216.155.73.164) by smtp1.surnet.cl (7.0.031.3) id 42587C6E00EA719F for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:26:58 -0400 Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (216.155.79.182) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 42B3EF6000231915 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:27:34 -0400 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 49A8BC2DC70; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:27:55 -0400 (CLT) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:27:55 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: postgresql performance list Subject: Re: plain inserts and deletes very slow Message-ID: <20050704142755.GA12062@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <20050703224537.GA9777@nibiru.borg.metux.de> <20050703225707.GB9777@nibiru.borg.metux.de> <42C887DC.40308@telogis.com> <20050704000157.GD9777@nibiru.borg.metux.de> <42C88D17.4080004@telogis.com> <20050704001747.GE9777@nibiru.borg.metux.de> <20050704025709.GA24255@alvh.no-ip.org> <20050704085729.GF9777@nibiru.borg.metux.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20050704085729.GF9777@nibiru.borg.metux.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.416 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200507/30 X-Sequence-Number: 13271 On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:57:29AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:17:47AM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > > * David Mitchell wrote: > > > > Perhaps if you are doing a lot of inserts and deletes, vacuuming every 6 > > > > minutes would be closer to your mark. Try vacuuming every 15 minutes for > > > > a start and see how that affects things (you will have to do a vacuum > > > > full to get the tables back into shape after them slowing down as they > > > > have). > > > > > > hmm. I've just done vacuum full at the moment on these tables, but it > > > doesnt seem to change anything :( > > > > Maybe you need a REINDEX, if you have indexes on that table. Try that, > > coupled with the frequent VACUUM suggestion. > > I've tried it, but it doesn't seem to help :( So, lets back up a little. You have no table nor index bloat, because you reindexed and full-vacuumed. So where does the slowness come from? Can you post an example EXPLAIN ANALYZE of the queries in question? -- Alvaro Herrera () "El realista sabe lo que quiere; el idealista quiere lo que sabe" (Anónimo)