Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C9B5FD16E for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:54:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from server.lerner.co.il ([69.55.231.200] helo=lerner.co.il) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S0wXe-0005Nv-8J for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:54:38 +0000 Received: by lerner.co.il (Postfix, from userid 1003) id DC85B5D643C; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:54:24 +0200 (IST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on lerner.co.il X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from MacBookPro.local (85.64.5.11.dynamic.barak-online.net [85.64.5.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: reuven) by lerner.co.il (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DBF85D615A; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:54:10 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <4F47A48C.6000302@lerner.co.il> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:54:04 +0200 From: "Reuven M. Lerner" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sthomas@peak6.com CC: Glyn Astill , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Very long deletion time on a 200 GB database References: <4F45FB55.1020600@lerner.co.il> <1329990620.15378.YahooMailNeo@web171403.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <4F4730B4.2050602@lerner.co.il> <4F479FDE.1070509@peak6.com> In-Reply-To: <4F479FDE.1070509@peak6.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201202/199 X-Sequence-Number: 46371 Hi, everyone. Shaun said: > On 02/24/2012 12:39 AM, Reuven M. Lerner wrote: > >> - CPU is virtually idle when running the deletes, using about 1% of >> CPU > > I think you found your problem. > > See if you can get the Windows admins to give you some info on how busy > the disks are (percent utilization, IOPS, something) the next time you > try this. Increasing your memory settings may help, but a 1% CPU usage > usually suggests it's waiting for disk blocks to be read before it can > actually do something. I asked them for disk readings, but I'm not sure how to contextualize the numbers I got: I/O writes: process1: 820,000, process2: 1Milion Process3: 33,000 Any suggestions for what I can do to improve performance with such a slow disk, and a lack of additional RAM? Reuven -- Reuven M. Lerner -- Web development, consulting, and training Mobile: +972-54-496-8405 * US phone: 847-230-9795 Skype/AIM: reuvenlerner