From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:08:56 -0500
Message-ID: <20051202210856.GA7135@phlogiston.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dmnj8g$1hrt$1@news.hub.org>
References: <dmmujf$2rgd$1@news.hub.org>
<c2d9e70e0512010742p5e5fb61dx84dfb8e332c05352@mail.gmail.com>
<dmn6tm$1n9n$1@news.hub.org>
<60psogzqui.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
<dmnj8g$1hrt$1@news.hub.org>
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:34:43PM +0100, Michael Riess wrote:
> Well, we tried switching to daily VACUUM ANALYZE and weekly VACUUM FULL,
> but the database got considerably slower near the end of the week.
If you have your FSM configured correctly and you are vacuuming
tables often enough for your turnover, than in regular operation you
should _never_ need VACUUM FULL. So it sounds like your first
problem is that. With the 15000 tables you were talking about,
though, that doesn't surprise me.
Are you sure more back ends wouldn't be a better answer, if you're
really wedded to this design? (I have a feeling that something along
the lines of what Tom Lane said would be a better answer -- I think
you need to be more clever, because I don't think this will ever work
well, on any system.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables
In-Reply-To: <20051202210856.GA7135@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox