Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4019FB82F for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:58:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29146-07 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:58:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com (ik-out-1112.google.com [66.249.90.179]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DEE9FB902 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:58:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c21so1813373ika for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=kgpzemwVCHNOUfoWUE4fOhh+0H8W5ANhfy1zMzpBLuc/WinNiqMRxoQ2mrIe7fKPaiTt1FWUyP+cK09oN7yncvnUX0Rg3zNdHxXL3GoGh0K+7+B0xiTXuakJ5VVc5H4YUbrmPDcNimxkK2s5xJcwIAKZaS+SKFMNZIhgohMWyU8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=SuKO59KbRI5wVYLuLdbKW3yAwCh93gl0dZbSD0c9jhRoiMBHtkXnH4ESUgTt9Sh5wHROJ/K39QgAbb7qsT+QbiANZ4ho/YT+LFN5LMv7PF63L+dZFJ3VrKEiLF8AMQTeVHxN41A9WHVuzy1H8FwzQseZbr4z3YR1Vz9fyGjDN0k= Received: by 10.78.149.15 with SMTP id w15mr1203376hud.1182275896251; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.33? ( [82.3.225.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 35sm2201791nfu.2007.06.19.10.58.13 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46781915.4010201@enterprisedb.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:57:41 +0100 From: Heikki Linnakangas User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Reyes CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access References: <4676DD57.7070304@metacarta.com> <14291.1182221811@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4677B831.8060704@metacarta.com> <4677D298.2010109@metacarta.com> <20070619132643.GC4265@alvh.no-ip.org> <4677DC06.3000300@metacarta.com> <20070619134637.GG4265@alvh.no-ip.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/375 X-Sequence-Number: 25408 Francisco Reyes wrote: > I have a setup with several databases (the largest of which is 1TB > database) and I do a nightly vacuum analyze for ALL databases. It takes > about 22 hours. And this is with constant updates to the large 1TB > database. This is with Postgresql 8.1.3 22h nightly? Wow, you have long nights ;-). On a serious note, the index vacuum improvements in 8.2 might help you to cut that down. You seem to be happy with your setup, but I thought I'd mention it.. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com