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 5860952BDF for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:17:14 -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 54397-05 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:17:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns.snowman.net (ns.snowman.net [66.92.160.21]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE8452BE5 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:17:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ns.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 36C0F17AF4; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:17:15 -0400 From: Stephen Frost To: Dan Harris Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Quad Opteron stuck in the mud Message-ID: <20050713201715.GI24207@ns.snowman.net> Mail-Followup-To: Dan Harris , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <42D56772.6020408@arbash-meinel.com> <862C6AD9-646B-4907-AB18-09F1AD08B5F5@drivefaster.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+fvCYAx0wXfEGTTZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <862C6AD9-646B-4907-AB18-09F1AD08B5F5@drivefaster.net> X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/ X-Info: http://www.snowman.net X-Operating-System: Linux/2.4.24ns.3.0 (i686) X-Uptime: 16:16:30 up 32 days, 12:36, 8 users, load average: 0.12, 0.08, 0.07 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.003 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/150 X-Sequence-Number: 13391 --+fvCYAx0wXfEGTTZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Dan Harris (fbsd@drivefaster.net) wrote: > On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:11 PM, John A Meinel wrote: > >I might be wrong, but there may be something much more substantially > >wrong than slow i/o. >=20 > Yes, I'm afraid of that too. I just don't know what tools I should =20 > use to figure that out. I have some 20 other databases on this =20 > system, same schema but varying sizes, and the small ones perform =20 > very well. It feels like there is an O(n) increase in wait time that =20 > has recently become very noticeable on the largest of them. Could you come up w/ a test case that others could reproduce where explain isn't returning? I think that would be very useful towards solving at least that issue... Thanks, Stephen --+fvCYAx0wXfEGTTZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC1XbKrzgMPqB3kigRAtjJAJ4lRzAyya3SuMnzv6yczJPFvlqdjwCcDLMK ruMkTUhhdJNCw0hWvi6PGLE= =/e4k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+fvCYAx0wXfEGTTZ--