From: Paul Thomas <paul@tmsl.demon.co.uk>
To: Michael L . Hostbaek <mich@the-lab.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql @ postgresql . org <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Performance issue
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:42:13 +0100
Message-ID: <20040427124213.A11703@bacon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040427091252.GA93126@mich2.itxmarket.com>
References: <20040427091252.GA93126@mich2.itxmarket.com>
On 27/04/2004 10:12 Michael L. Hostbaek wrote:
> [snip]
> Is this normal ? If I run the same select on another table in the same
> database with ~40.000 rows, it takes approx 820.00ms...
You would probably get better answers on the correct list but my guess is
that your fsm setting might be too low for the number of dead tuples you
are trying to reclaim so the vacuum is not clearing all the dead stuff
out. There's plenty of stuff about this in the archives and the docs.
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: paul@tmsl.demon.co.uk, mich@the-lab.org
Subject: Re: Performance issue
In-Reply-To: <20040427124213.A11703@bacon>
* 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