X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA47B52A3C for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:03:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32594-01 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:03:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E660852CAB for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:03:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6IE3sZt002899; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:03:54 -0400 (EDT) To: Robert Creager Cc: PGPerformance , Andy Hewitt Subject: Re: Huge performance problem between 7.4.1 and 8.0.3 - CS In-reply-to: <20050718074744.03afadc3@thunder.logicalchaos.org> References: <20050717213416.59dcb52e@thunder.logicalchaos.org> <24520.1121659853@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20050717235630.26a7c979@thunder.logicalchaos.org> <2466.1121692991@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20050718074744.03afadc3@thunder.logicalchaos.org> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Creager message dated "Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:47:44 -0600" Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:03:54 -0400 Message-ID: <2898.1121695434@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/259 X-Sequence-Number: 13500 Robert Creager writes: > Tom Lane confessed: >> It's still far from clear what's going on there, but it might be >> interesting to see if turning off the vacuum delay changes your results >> with 8.0. > Can that be affected by hupping the server, or do I need a restart? sighup should be fine. regards, tom lane