From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:12:02 -0400
Message-ID: <46F6BA82.3080101@mochima.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070923182349.GC5679@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <46F6981B.1010600@mochima.com>
<36e682920709230956p1312745eif1c6ba7a342dae3d@mail.gmail.com>
<46F6AD2D.4090300@mochima.com>
<20070923182349.GC5679@alvh.no-ip.org>
>> I don't understand this argument --- the newer system has actually
>> less memory than the old one; how could it fit there and not on the
>> old one? Plus, how could dropping-recreating the database on the same
>> machine change the fact that the entire dataset entirely fit or not in
>> memory??
>
> Because on the older server it is bloated, while on the new one it is
> fresh thus no dead tuples.
Wait a second --- am I correct in understanding then that the bloating
you guys are referring to occurs *in memory*??
My mind has been operating under the assumption that bloating only
occurs on disk, and never in memory --- is there where my logic is
mistaken?
>> I wonder if I should then periodically run a vacuum full --- say, once
>> a week? Once a month?
>
> Never. What you need to do is make sure your FSM settings
> (fsm_max_pages in particular) are high enough, and that you VACUUM (not
> full) frequently enough.
Noted.
Thanks!
Carlos
--
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: moreno_pg@mochima.com
Subject: Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?
In-Reply-To: <46F6BA82.3080101@mochima.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox