Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CB6632BE4 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:46:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58955-01-4 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:46:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-px0-f186.google.com (mail-px0-f186.google.com [209.85.216.186]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA5D63551C for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:46:31 -0400 (AST) Received: by pxi16 with SMTP id 16so1005967pxi.29 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:46:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Gh4Rf5YwHRe91hzlEXp9TCuAqXPr4ZExQrhXwtKpsuw=; b=FL6rOj1jwtXXGRLv9cb4QHY2edAwvi8nQrPogXiKHmuYl05DEF7qpSIsNzOAZQFEKQ veMEp3FFUl4zh2iWimdqupLq2rq64sp+UYY7jz9QuWIRWgzSlyYEo/ZaqW7wjOI+leKu RqQvFerMD9f2WvxlCWFgkr9ttBe7WknL0ely0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=SXg2pB38Asd4ZUh7bXRWbJYHtGFXn+39TJOyKs8TBKDjwTmwjgUnUiNVE5MuRsmO3l cukeOntKThv3UTx/ttPgAaM++Q1/pFRFupS4Kiag19InXxezcgY/loiaQ4R/0L5cYPd9 b8RMK7B6GcKxBuoSs41ZVZIy1lehjvMjkd+Sg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.251.12 with SMTP id y12mr442438rvh.236.1257777989717; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:46:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <603c8f070911081958sbac9712k15f50b80e5419d3c@mail.gmail.com> References: <008801ca6021$c1cc7630$45656290$@com> <18869.1257650960@sss.pgh.pa.us> <009601ca6030$0e731440$2b593cc0$@com> <603c8f070911081958sbac9712k15f50b80e5419d3c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 06:46:29 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE slowing down significantly over time From: Anj Adu To: Robert Haas Cc: Aris Samad-Yahaya , Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200911/91 X-Sequence-Number: 36259 Why is reindex needed ? Unless most of the key values get deleted frequently..this is not needed. (I am assuming postgres 8.x and above) On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Aris Samad-Yahaya > wrote: >> We vacuum analyze nightly, and vacuum normally ad-hoc (but we're going to >> schedule this weekly moving forward). >> >> Interesting pointer about system catalog bloat. I tried to vacuum full the >> system catalog tables (pg_*), and the performance for creating a single >> table manually improved dramatically (back to what it used to be), but as >> soon as I created the next schema, the performance went back down to the >> same level. >> >> So there's a clue there somewhere. Next I will try to vacuum full the entire >> database. > > And maybe REINDEX, too. > > ...Robert > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >