Message-ID: <448D8204.80303@rentalia.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:02:28 +0200
From: Ruben Rubio Rey <ruben@rentalia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8 (X11/20060503)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Posrgres speed problem
References: <448D7C81.1000108@rentalia.com>
	<36e682920606120749l7da92ff8k6b9f702029cd5d3a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <36e682920606120749l7da92ff8k6b9f702029cd5d3a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jonah H. Harris wrote:

> On 6/12/06, Ruben Rubio Rey <ruben@rentalia.com> wrote:
>
>> I have two similar servers, one in production and another
>> for testing purposes.  In testing server ~1sec ... in
>> production ~50 secs
>
>
> What ver of PostgreSQL?

Version 8.1.3

>   Same ver on both systems?

Yes

> Are there any
> locks currently held on the resources needed in your Production
> environment?

How to check it?

> Have you analyzed both databases?

I have restores testing server today. Full Analyce included.
Production server all nights is done. (i have posted the script in other 
message to the mailing list)

> Any sequential scans
> running?

In the table, there is several scans.

vacadb=# \d grupoforo
                                            Table "public.grupoforo"
      Column      |            Type             
|                           Modifiers
------------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------
 idmensaje        | integer                     | not null default 
nextval('grupoforo_idmensaje_seq'::regclass)
 idusuario        | integer                     | not null
 idgrupo          | integer                     | not null
 idmensajetema    | integer                     | not null default -1
 mensaje          | character varying(4000)     |
 asunto           | character varying(255)      | not null
 fechalocal       | timestamp without time zone | default now()
 webenabled       | integer                     | not null default 1
 por              | character varying(255)      |
 estadocomentario | character(1)                | default 'D'::bpchar
 idlenguaje       | character(2)                | default 'ES'::bpchar
 fechacreacion    | timestamp without time zone | default now()
 hijos            | integer                     |
 hijoreciente     | timestamp without time zone |
 valoracion       | integer                     | default 0
 codigo           | character varying(100)      |
Indexes:
    "pk_grupoforo" PRIMARY KEY, btree (idmensaje)
    "grupoforo_asunto_idx" btree (asunto)
    "grupoforo_codigo_idx" btree (codigo)
    "grupoforo_estadocomentario_idx" btree (estadocomentario)
    "grupoforo_idgrupo_idx" btree (idgrupo)
    "grupoforo_idlenguaje_idx" btree (idlenguaje)
    "grupoforo_idmensajetema_idx" btree (idmensajetema)
    "grupoforo_idusuario_idx" btree (idusuario)
    "idx_grupoforo_webenabled" btree (webenabled)


> If so, have you vacuumed?

Yes.

>
> Send the explain analyze from your test database.

Tomorrow morning i ll send it ... now it could be a disaster ...

>
>