X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0C59FA6B4 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 19:17:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84622-06 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 19:17:33 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FF09FA6B3 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 19:17:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7C6815647E; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:17:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:17:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:17:25 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Antoine Cc: mischa@ca.sophos.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: vacuuming problems continued Message-ID: <20060607221724.GC45331@pervasive.com> References: <92d3a4950606010454y67293765o56001e8996975b45@mail.gmail.com> <20060605204151.GC7071@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <4485CECC.4040207@ca.sophos.com> <4485D5C3.7010803@commandprompt.com> <4485D9A1.30807@ca.sophos.com> <92d3a4950606071352u7aa25789q9f1dbc57fd14847e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <92d3a4950606071352u7aa25789q9f1dbc57fd14847e@mail.gmail.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060607:melser.anton@gmail.com::+3KS5tarTmHGlGTh:000000000000000 0000000000000000000000003haG X-Hashcash: 1:20:060607:mischa@ca.sophos.com::/WetfTuq8iJ27l7h:00000000000000000 0000000000000000000000007SUf X-Hashcash: 1:20:060607:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::bhmo935Wa5GM7SIv:00000 0000000000000000000000003N4J X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/81 X-Sequence-Number: 19438 Bloat doesn't depend on your update/delete rate; it depends on how many update/deletes occur between vacuums. Long running transactions also come into play. As for performance, a P4 with 512M of ram is pretty much a toy in the database world; it wouldn't be very hard to swamp it. But without actual details there's no way to know. On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:52:26PM +0200, Antoine wrote: > Hi all and thanks for your responses. I haven't yet had a chance to > tweak the autovac settings but I really don't think that things can be > maxing out even the default settings. > We have about 4 machines that are connected 24/7 - they were doing > constant read/inserts (24/7) but that was because the code was > rubbish. I managed to whinge enough to get the programme to read, do > the work, then insert, and that means they are accessing (connected > but idle) for less than 5% of the day. We have about another 10 > machines that access (reads and updates) from 8-5. It is running on a > P4 with 256 or 512meg of ram and I simply refuse to believe this load > is anything significant... :-(. > There are only two tables that see any action, and the smaller one is > almost exclusively inserts. > Much as I believe it shouldn't be possible the ratio of 5:1 for the db > vs fresh copy has given me a taste for a copy/drop scenario... > I will try and increase settings and keep you posted. > Cheers > Antoine > > > -- > This is where I should put some witty comment. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461