Message-ID: <54DFA522.4020407@poste.it>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 20:42:26 +0100
From: Nico Sabbi <nicola.sabbi@poste.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Configuration tips for very large database
References: <54DD2872.3070603@poste.it>
 <2034701464.2446674.1423780681188.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAGTBQpb4_sk1hebZh3pekL=QxgMJCFOC-nxE_LW5_usSWrBjPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGTBQpb4_sk1hebZh3pekL=QxgMJCFOC-nxE_LW5_usSWrBjPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 02/13/2015 12:19 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> I have a table with ~800M rows, wide ones, that runs reporting queries
> quite efficiently (usually seconds).
>
> Of course, the queries don't traverse the whole table. That wouldn't
> be efficient. That's probably the key there, don't make you database
> process the whole thing every time if you expect it to be scalable.
>
> What kind of queries are you running that have slowed down?
>
> Post an explain analyze so people can diagnose. Possibly it's a
> query/indexing issue rather than a hardware one.
>

Thanks everybody for the answers. At the moment I don't have the queries 
at hand (saturday:-) ).
I'll post them next week.

I'd really like to avoid data partitioning if possible. It's a thing 
that gives me a strong stomach ache.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance