Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F5E9FB274
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:58 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 19620-07 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:47 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EECA9FB1C2
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:49 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0BIHjwi027679;
	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:17:45 -0500 (EST)
To: Kim <kim@myemma.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade 
In-reply-to: <45A671CD.1050706@myemma.com> 
References: <45A671CD.1050706@myemma.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Kim <kim@myemma.com>
	message dated "Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:20:13 -0600"
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:17:44 -0500
Message-ID: <27678.1168539464@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200701/177
X-Sequence-Number: 22778

Kim <kim@myemma.com> writes:
> Running a vac on an 8.2 client connecting to an 8.2 database (following 
> example was for a 14 row static table) - vacuums will sit (for lack of a 
> better word) for anywhere from ten to twenty minutes before taking a 
> lock out on the table and doing work there.

How big is this database (how many pg_class entries)?  What do you get
from "VACUUM VERBOSE pg_class"?  The truss results make it sound like
the problem is pgstat_vacuum_tabstat() taking a long time, but that code
has not changed since 8.1 ...

			regards, tom lane