Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622E7633CE6 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:45:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 58707-10 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AFA5632B07 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:45:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0EJjaS6068294 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:45:36 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o0EJJnVd058105 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:19:49 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news) From: "Carlo Stonebanks" X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Massive table (500M rows) update nightmare Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:20:30 -0500 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18005 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18005 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.002 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201001/302 X-Sequence-Number: 37182 Guys, I want to thank you for all of the advice - my client has just made a surprise announcement that he would like to set start from scratch with a new server, so I am afraid that all of this great advice has to be seen in the context of whatever decision is made on that. I am out there, hat-in-hand, looking for advice under the PERFORM post: "New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice?" Thanks again! Carlo "Scott Marlowe" wrote in message news:dcc563d11001071740q572cdae2re410788fe790dbf6@mail.gmail.com... > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Carlo Stonebanks > wrote: >> Doing the updates in smaller chunks resolved these apparent freezes - or, >> more specifically, when the application DID freeze, it didn't do it for >> more >> than 30 seconds. In all likelyhood, this is the OS and the DB thrashing. > > It might well be checkpoints. Have you tried cranking up checkpoint > segments to something like 100 or more and seeing how it behaves then? > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >