X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCE952812 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:05:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30113-04 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:05:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.193]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7405280D for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:05:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so479104wri for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:05:18 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KdKc5F8FMHhb6uvE4mPdXf6NuCA302lvIMoDoARoSTdVI+UVmpprVGoTaEt6cP14UvdWxToy/vOY1ffaF/DU/0RGeyCxJ0NpqO+55WxjK2dab4eKOFLcmMHLDw6ATTYXl/bq67lEiCbFodYKRN1hosTi1V0STqs2o85Ka0Ok+9o= Received: by 10.54.25.5 with SMTP id 5mr3232176wry; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.46.46 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <65569526050621080553350f62@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:05:17 -0700 From: Jone C Reply-To: Jone C To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: slow growing table In-Reply-To: <20050606171253.GA1655@uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <6556952605060609485c622403@mail.gmail.com> <20050606170037.GA1177@uio.no> <20050606171253.GA1655@uio.no> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.024 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=RCVD_BY_IP X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/386 X-Sequence-Number: 13023 > On second thought... Does a VACUUM FULL help? If so, you might want to > increase your FSM settings. Thank you for the reply, sorry for delay I was on holiday. I tried that it had no effect. I benchmarked 2x before, peformed VACUUM FULL on the table in question post inserts, then benchmarked 2x after. Same results... Should I try your suggestion on deleting the indexes? This table needs to be accessible for reads at all times however though... thank you kindly On 6/6/05, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:00:37PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > You might have a problem with index bloat. Could you try REINDEXing the > > indexes on the table and see if that makes a difference? >=20 >=20 > /* Steinar */ > --=20 > Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ >=20 > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >