Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Karl Wright
Subject Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Date
Msg-id 4677DC06.3000300@metacarta.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
List pgsql-performance
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Karl Wright wrote:
>
>> This particular run lasted four days before a VACUUM became essential.
>> The symptom that indicates that VACUUM is needed seems to be that the
>> CPU usage of any given postgresql query skyrockets.  Is this essentially
>> correct?
>
> Are you saying you weren't used to run VACUUM all the time?  If so,
> that's where the problem lies.
>

Postgresql 7.4 VACUUM runs for so long that starting it with a cron job
even every 24 hours caused multiple instances of VACUUM to eventually be
running in my case.  So I tried to find a VACUUM schedule that permitted
each individual vacuum to finish before the next one started.  A vacuum
seemed to require 4-5 days with this particular database - or at least
it did for 7.4.  So I had the VACUUM schedule set to run every six days.

I will be experimenting with 8.1 to see how long it takes to complete a
vacuum under load conditions tonight.

Karl


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access