Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 18:31:13 -0700
From: Shawn <postgres@xmtservices.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Slow Query
Message-ID: <20070909183113.4f90d9d0@boffin.xmtservices.net>
In-Reply-To: <6471.1188868206@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20070901102947.0c0a50a3@boffin.xmtservices.net>
	<46DA9522.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
	<20070903091558.0780b963@boffin.xmtservices.net>
	<46DC071D.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
	<20070903165334.0da769c1@boffin.xmtservices.net>
	<6184.1188866982@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20070903180639.54afff8d@boffin.xmtservices.net>
	<6471.1188868206@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:10:06 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Shawn <postgres@xmtservices.net> writes:
> > You weren't kidding, that really made a difference.  its .5 sec now
> > on the run.  I think the vacuuming not running for a few weeks is
> > what got me.  I caught an edit that had stopped the vacuuming
> > routine a while back.  That must have been what caused the index
> > bloat.
> 
> Hmm, but no vacuuming at all would have allowed the table itself to
> bloat too.  Did you do a VACUUM FULL to recover after you noticed
> the size problem?  The trouble with VACUUM FULL is it compresses the
> table but doesn't do a dang thing for indexes ...
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 

Thanks again to the list.  I ran the reindex command that Tom suggested
and things seem to be holding.  Even the vacuum command is running
faster.  The whole script runs in about 10 seconds, far more acceptable.

Thanks Guys!

Shawn