Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761259FB1DF
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:55:06 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 91019-06 for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:54:53 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:25.997708 by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com
 [209.85.134.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868329FA4C3
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:55:01 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so2732435muf
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=U37H7wIPRB5vDla7EraV7bXoVlaDTiTelf9I1w8GEdABBxegTsbLihXTju7nSCzhDE8t1dETHdNwYBqGS7IFnWMqqHyqi1Xw3C1XJQsQgReXiDb4Iest11yVnkO9UVHojzOxb/HVrwD4/UivCd78NkYv61bH0G67RPN+95RIUVA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=nmfL8rs4uMIE651E8eVRUlENWVRa1ayCDFpahUHRYbQHEiqYLUENelhSFPPzgeYUb6AzyndbgCdAzKwq8THbnP7kirmE30rnR12z72u+8mbJhXiaB9eeUmqngASegwpviOwFCqyHqr/pzVRmCRYSUjrI15E0pfbi9wKHDVTQkAc=
Received: by 10.82.155.10 with SMTP id c10mr2522832bue.1173818910916;
	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.82.190.7 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7539aebb0703131348m4d139387ob3db342b22170021@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:48:30 -0400
From: Sumeet <asumeet@gmail.com>
To: "Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <andrej.groups@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: postgres configuration
Cc: PostgreSQL <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <b35603930703131106g2606bdc3j94e44a0844923227@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_32659_19386212.1173818910871"
References: <7539aebb0703131014y2512853fw9ced1bd3bb5f5e77@mail.gmail.com>
	<b35603930703131106g2606bdc3j94e44a0844923227@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200703/179
X-Sequence-Number: 27817

------=_Part_32659_19386212.1173818910871
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

The only info i have is

Apple xRaid drive array with 14 400GB drives for a total of 5 TB storage
I have around 10-15 indexes for each tables. does the number of indexes slow
down the vacuum process?
indexes are compund indexes on multiple fields.

-Sumeet


On 3/13/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej.groups@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/14/07, Sumeet <asumeet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> Hi,
>
> > Sorry if this is the wrong list to ask this question.
> General woould have been better :)
>
> > My Vacuum's are running very very slow and expecially when vacuuming
> indexes
> > in large tables of size in 5-10 gigabytes,
> > can some one help me determine the parameters for postgres.conf which
> will
> > help me vacuum fast. I'm running postgres on a server with 32 gigs of
> ram
> > and 8 processors.
> And the disk subsystem is .... ?
>
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Sumeet.
> Cheers,
> Andrej
>



-- 
Thanks,
Sumeet Ambre
Master of Information Science Candidate,
Indiana University.

------=_Part_32659_19386212.1173818910871
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

The only info i have is<br>
<br>
Apple xRaid drive array with 14 400GB drives for a total of 5 TB storage<br>I have around 10-15 indexes for each tables. does the number of indexes slow down the vacuum process?<br>indexes are compund indexes on multiple fields.
<br><br>-Sumeet<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/13/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andrej Ricnik-Bay</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:andrej.groups@gmail.com">andrej.groups@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 3/14/07, Sumeet &lt;<a href="mailto:asumeet@gmail.com">asumeet@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt; Hi All,<br>Hi,<br><br>&gt; Sorry if this is the wrong list to ask this question.<br>General woould have been better :)<br>
<br>&gt; My Vacuum&#39;s are running very very slow and expecially when vacuuming indexes<br>&gt; in large tables of size in 5-10 gigabytes,<br>&gt; can some one help me determine the parameters for postgres.conf which will
<br>&gt; help me vacuum fast. I&#39;m running postgres on a server with 32 gigs of ram<br>&gt; and 8 processors.<br>And the disk subsystem is .... ?<br><br><br><br>&gt; Thanks,<br>&gt; Sumeet.<br>Cheers,<br>Andrej<br></blockquote>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Thanks,<br>Sumeet Ambre<br>Master of Information Science Candidate,<br>Indiana University.

------=_Part_32659_19386212.1173818910871--