RES: RES: Degradation of postgres 7.4.5 on FreeBSD/CygWin - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Rodrigo Moreno
Subject RES: RES: Degradation of postgres 7.4.5 on FreeBSD/CygWin
Date
Msg-id KMEJIOKLKEBIECAIJKPKAEOACAAA.rodrigo.miguel@terra.com.br
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RES: Degradation of postgres 7.4.5 on FreeBSD/CygWin  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Thanks to all,

at this moment, can't stop the database and put back the old database, but
at night i will take more analyzes on old database and reimported and i put
here the results.

Thanks a lot
Rodrigo

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 18 de fevereiro de 2005 12:00
Para: Rodrigo Moreno
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Assunto: Re: RES: [PERFORM] Degradation of postgres 7.4.5 on
FreeBSD/CygWin


"Rodrigo Moreno" <rodrigo.miguel@terra.com.br> writes:
> max_fsm_pages = 40000
> max_fsm_relations = 2000

> But why after 2 months the database has 1.3gb and after reimport on 900mb
?

40k pages = 320M bytes = 1/3rd of your database.  Perhaps you need a
larger setting for max_fsm_pages.

However, 30% bloat of the database doesn't particularly bother me,
especially when you are using infrequent vacuums.  Bear in mind that,
for example, the steady-state fill factor of a b-tree index is usually
estimated at less than 70%.  A certain amount of wasted space is not
only intended, but essential for reasonable performance.

What you need is to take a more detailed look at the behavior of that
function that's getting so slow.  Are the query plans changing?  Is
the loop iterating over many more rows than before?  You haven't told
us anything that would account for 100x slowdown.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question
Next
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering