Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1969F9FB722
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:00:10 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 20058-02 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:59:42 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:29:29.676606 by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84129FB2A4
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:00:00 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [207.253.108.107] by VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca
	(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005))
	with ESMTP id <0JE600EPZRET6W31@VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:30:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:37:25 -0500
From: Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mochima.com>
Subject: Re: Upgraded to 8.2.3 --- still having performance issues
In-reply-to: <5279.1172683250@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Message-id: <45E5CBE5.2000009@mochima.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
References: <45E5B7D2.5020306@mochima.com> <5279.1172683250@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50,
	SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200703/103
X-Sequence-Number: 23508

Tom Lane wrote:

>Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com> writes:
>  
>
>>I would have expected a mind-blowing increase in responsiveness and
>>overall performance.  However, that's not the case --- if I didn't know
>>better, I'd probably tend to say that it is indeed the opposite  
>>(performance seems to have deteriorated)
>>    
>>
>
>Did you remember to re-ANALYZE everything after loading up the new
>database?  That's a frequent gotcha ...
>  
>

I did.

I didn't think it would be necessary, but being paranoid as I am, I figured
let's do it just in case.

After a few hours of operation, I did a vacuumdb -z  also.  But it seems to
continue downhill   :-(

Thanks,

Carlos
--