Re: count(*) performance

From: Gábriel Ákos
Subject: Re: count(*) performance
Date: ,
Msg-id: 44282D45.7020008@i-logic.hu
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: count(*) performance  ("Luke Lonergan")
Responses: Re: count(*) performance  ("Matthew T. O'Connor")
Re: count(*) performance  (Markus Schaber)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

count(*) performance  (Gábriel Ákos, )
 Re: count(*) performance  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
  Re: count(*) performance  (Gábriel Ákos, )
   Re: count(*) performance  ("Luke Lonergan", )
    Re: count(*) performance  (Gábriel Ákos, )
     Re: count(*) performance  ("Matthew T. O'Connor", )
     Re: count(*) performance  (Markus Schaber, )
    Re: count(*) performance  (Brendan Duddridge, )
     Re: count(*) performance  (Alvaro Herrera, )
     Re: count(*) performance  (Guido Neitzer, )
     Re: count(*) performance  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
 Re: count(*) performance  ("Luke Lonergan", )
  Re: count(*) performance  (Gábriel Ákos, )
 Re: count(*) performance  ("Mikael Carneholm", )
  Re: count(*) performance  ("Matthew T. O'Connor", )
   Re: count(*) performance  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: count(*) performance  ("Mikael Carneholm", )

Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Gabriel,
>
> On 3/27/06 10:05 AM, "Gábriel Ákos" <> wrote:
>
>> That gave me an idea. I thought that autovacuum is doing it right, but I
>> issued a vacuum full analyze verbose , and it worked all the day.
>> After that I've tweaked memory settings a bit too (more fsm_pages)
>
> Oops! I replied to your disk speed before I saw this.
>
> The only thing is - you probably don't want to do a "vacuum full", but
> rather a simple "vacuum" should be enough.

I thought that too. Autovacuum is running on our system but it didn't do
the trick. Anyway the issue is solved, thank you all for helping. :)


--
Üdvözlettel,
Gábriel Ákos
-=E-Mail :|Web:  http://www.i-logic.hu=-
-=Tel/fax:+3612367353            |Mobil:+36209278894            =-


pgsql-performance by date:

From: "Mikael Carneholm"
Date:
Subject: Re: count(*) performance
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: simple join uses indexes, very slow