Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DC59FB60D
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:30:14 -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 24211-08 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:29:42 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EFF9FB5F9
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:30:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [207.253.108.107] by VL-MO-MR002.ip.videotron.ca
	(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005))
	with ESMTP id <0JE600IA8U5ZQ620@VL-MO-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:30:00 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:36:55 -0500
From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@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: <45E5D9D7.5090608@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=0.05 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50,
	SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200702/345
X-Sequence-Number: 23399

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 had done it, even though I was under the impression that it wouldn't be
necessary with 8.2.x  (I still chose to do it just in case).

I've since discovered a problem that *may* be related to the deterioration
of the performance *now* --- but that still does not explain the machine
choking since last night, so any comments or tips are still most welcome.

Thanks,

Carlos
--