From: Steve Peterson <stevep-hv@zpfe.com>
To: me@alternize.com
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: UPDATE becomes mired / win32
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:06:49 -0500
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20061005000508.04bb03d8@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0d3301c6e7e0$ce71c190$6501a8c0@iwing>
References: <6.2.3.4.0.20061004094635.03c114a8@localhost>
<0d3301c6e7e0$ce71c190$6501a8c0@iwing>
I'm pretty sure that the table was empty before doing the load, but I
gave this a shot. It didn't have an impact on the results.
The behavior also persists across a dump/reload of the table into a
new install on a different machine. IIRC dump/reload rebuilds
indexes from scratch.
Steve
At 01:13 PM 10/4/2006, me@alternize.com wrote:
>>The table, VOTER, contains 3,090,013 rows and each row is about 120
>>bytes wide. It's loaded via a batch process in one shot, and the
>>load is followed by an VACUUM FULL ANALYZE. Its structure is shown
>>at the bottom of the message.
>
>
>if the table wasn't empty before and has indices defined, try a
>"REINDEX TABLE VOTER" before running the update. i had a similar
>case where an often updated table was vacuumed regurarly, but the
>indices grew and grew and grew. in my case the table - even when
>empty and analyze full'ed was 1.2gb according to pgadmin due to
>(outdated) indices. a reindex fixed all my performance issues.
>
>- thomas
>
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: stevep-hv@zpfe.com, me@alternize.com
Subject: Re: UPDATE becomes mired / win32
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20061005000508.04bb03d8@localhost>
* 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