From: Kevin Kempter <kevin@kevinkempterllc.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: significant vacuum issues - looking for suggestions
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:06:00 -0600
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <200708241357.23629.kevin@kevinkempterllc.com>
	<46D30240.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
	<20070827220438.GR54309@nasby.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070827220438.GR54309@nasby.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708271606.01016.kevin@kevinkempterllc.com>

On Monday 27 August 2007 16:04:39 Decibel! wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:56:33PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > >>> Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> 08/27/07 4:00 PM >>>
> > >>>
> > > > > They're running  version 8.1.4
> > >
> > > As for your pg_dump idea... why not just do a CREATE TABLE AS SELECT *
> > > FROM bloated_table? That would likely be much faster than messing
> > > around with pg_dump.
> >
> > He wanted to upgrade to 8.2.4.  CREATE TABLE AS won't get him there.
> >
> > > > > They're running  version 8.1.4 on 4-way dell boxes
> > > > > with 4Gig of memory on each box attached to RAID-10 disk arrays.
> > >
> > > What kind of disk hardware is this running on? A good raid 10 array
> > > with write caching should be able to handle a 200G database fairly well
> >
> > What other details were you looking for?
>
> How many drives? Write caching? 200G isn't *that* big for good drive
> hardware, *IF* it's performing the way it should. You'd be surprised how
> many arrays fall on their face even from a simple dd test.

I havent gotten that info yet, the key resources are too busy... I'll have 
more info next week.

Thanks for the replies...