On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Elanchezhiyan Elango wrote:
>
>> Each table has 4 indices. The updates are to the indexed columns.
>>
>> Here is the schema of a table: http://pastebin.com/ffu0dUjS All tables
>> have this same schema except that some tables don't have a port column and
>> so wil
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Elanchezhiyan Elango wrote:
> Missed to answer this one:
>
>> Is the 5GB for the table plus indexes, or just the table itself?
>
> No it's not including the the indices. Including indices it's actually
> 17GB!!
>
Is it one particular index that is bloated?
Che
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Elanchezhiyan Elango wrote:
>
>
>
Why do you have a 4 minute timeout? That seems counter-productive.
>
> Oh, Is it less or more?
>
I would not have timeouts on maintenance operations at all. To me a
statement timeout is a last ditch method to deal with a rec
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Elanchezhiyan Elango
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need help on deciding my vacuuming strategy. I need to know if I ever
> need to do 'vacuum full' for my tables.
>
>
Important and critical configuration is "fillfactor". "fillfactor" will
have a greater impact on VACUUMING s
Hi:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Elanchezhiyan Elango
wrote:
> Francisco,
> Thanks for the partitioning idea. I used to have the tables partitioned. But
> now that I have moved to a schema where data is split across about ~90
> tables I have moved away from partitioning. But it's something I
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Elanchezhiyan Elango
wrote:
> log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0
>
> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0
> autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 4
> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0
> autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 4
I don't think it is a good idea to set scale fa
>
>
> Each table has 4 indices. The updates are to the indexed columns.
>
> Here is the schema of a table: http://pastebin.com/ffu0dUjS All tables
> have this same schema except that some tables don't have a port column and
> so will have one less index
What indexes exist? Are the updates to inde
Missed to answer this one:
>
> Is the 5GB for the table plus indexes, or just the table itself?
No it's not including the the indices. Including indices it's actually
17GB!!
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Elanchezhiyan Elango wrote:
> Sergey,
> Thanks for the aggressive settings. I have li
Sergey,
Thanks for the aggressive settings. I have listed some settings I am
planning to try below. Please review and let me know your feedback.
Francisco,
Thanks for the partitioning idea. I used to have the tables partitioned.
But now that I have moved to a schema where data is split across abou
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Elanchezhiyan Elango
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need help on deciding my vacuuming strategy. I need to know if I ever
> need to do 'vacuum full' for my tables.
>
> Tables1: Following is the query patterns on 4 high traffic table in my
> database:
> 1. Every 5 minutes about
Hi:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Elanchezhiyan Elango
wrote:
> I need help on deciding my vacuuming strategy. I need to know if I ever need
> to do 'vacuum full' for my tables.
>
> Tables1: Following is the query patterns on 4 high traffic table in my
> database:
> 1. Every 5 minutes about 50
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Elanchezhiyan Elango
wrote:
[...]
> With the above query pattern with intensive updates and deletes, I need to
> do some aggressive vacuuming.
>
> Current strategy:I am running with default autovacuum settings (postgres
> 9.1.9) and I tried doing a 'vacuum full' fo
Hi,
I need help on deciding my vacuuming strategy. I need to know if I ever
need to do 'vacuum full' for my tables.
Tables1: Following is the query patterns on 4 high traffic table in my
database:
1. Every 5 minutes about 5 rows in the table are updated. And for a
given clock hour the same 50
13 matches
Mail list logo
