Message-ID: <46796A08.8080601@metacarta.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:55:20 -0400
From: Karl Wright <kwright@metacarta.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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>
	<cone.1182267949.154012.90929.5001@35st.simplicato.com>
	<467963A8.2060703@metacarta.com>
	<20070620175300.GN30369@alvh.no-ip.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070620175300.GN30369@alvh.no-ip.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Karl Wright wrote:
> 
>> (b) the performance of individual queries had already degraded 
>> significantly in the same manner as what I'd seen before.
> 
> You didn't answer whether you had smaller, more frequently updated
> tables that need more vacuuming.  This comment makes me think you do.  I
> think what you should be looking at is whether you can forget vacuuming
> the whole database in one go, and make it more granular.
> 

I am afraid that I did answer this.  My largest tables are the ones 
continually being updated.  The smaller ones are updated only infrequently.

Karl