X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7759C9DD56C for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:09:02 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25366-06 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:08:58 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from smtp100.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp100.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.78]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93FF69DCF92 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:08:59 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 89309 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2005 21:08:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO phlogiston.dydns.org) (a.sullivan@rogers.com@209.222.54.227 with login) by smtp100.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2005 21:08:57 -0000 Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A77340B6; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:08:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:08:56 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 15,000 tables Message-ID: <20051202210856.GA7135@phlogiston.dyndns.org> References: <60psogzqui.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/79 X-Sequence-Number: 15900 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