Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jonah H. Harris
Subject Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?
Date
Msg-id 36e682920709230956p1312745eif1c6ba7a342dae3d@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?  (Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>)
Responses Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?  (Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>)
List pgsql-performance
You didn't specify the database size, but my guess is that the total
data size about enough to fit in shared_buffers or kernel cache.  On
the new system (or dropped/recreated database), it would've all or
mostly fit in memory which would make things like count(*) work
quickly.  On the old database, you probably had a lot of fragmentation
which would've caused significantly more I/O to be performed thereby
causing a slowdown.  You could compare relation sizes to check easily.

My guess is that a vacuum full would've brought the other database
back up to speed.  In the future, you probably want to set fillfactor
to a reasonable amount to account for updates-to-blocks-between-vacuum
to try and capture as few row-migrations as possible.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation                | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor          | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837                        | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Carlos Moreno
Date:
Subject: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?
Next
From: "Yinan Li"
Date:
Subject: zero value in statistics collector's result