(I've changed the original subject, "autovacuum locking question", of the
sender's email so as not to hijack that thread.)
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:26 PM Mike Schanne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am investigating a performance problem...
> ... This email is non-binding, is subject to contract, and neither
oud equivalent is for low-cost storage) backup with just modest bandwidth
usage.
In a cloud environment, you can do this on modestly-priced hardware (a few
CPUs, modest memory). In the event of a failover, unmount your backup disk,
spin up a big server, mount the database, do the incremental res
Problem solved ... see below. Thanks everyone for your suggestions and
insights!
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 7:16 AM Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 7:27 PM Craig James wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:45 PM Jeff Janes wrote:
>> BTW, I'll note at t
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:45 PM Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:20 PM Craig James wrote:
>
>> I'm completely baffled by this problem: I'm doing a delete that joins
>> three modest-sized tables, and it gets completely stuck: 100% CPU use
&
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-11-14 14:19:51 -0800, Craig James wrote:
> > I'm completely baffled by this problem: I'm doing a delete that joins
> three
> > modest-sized tables, and it gets completely stuck: 100% CPU
I'm completely baffled by this problem: I'm doing a delete that joins three
modest-sized tables, and it gets completely stuck: 100% CPU use forever.
Here's the query:
explain analyze
select count(1) from registry.categories
where category_id = 15 and id in
(select c.id from registry.categor
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:31 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:30:24PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:45 PM Justin Pryzby
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:40:58PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
> > > > O
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:45 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:40:58PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
> > On Postgres 9.6 (config below), I have a case I don't understand: three
> > tables that can be separately queried in milliseconds, but when put
> > to
On Postgres 9.6 (config below), I have a case I don't understand: three
tables that can be separately queried in milliseconds, but when put
together into one view using UNION, take 150 seconds to query. Here's the
rough idea (actual details below):
create view thesaurus as
(select id,
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> What would the list think of a web form for submitting problems the
> performance
> list, similar to the pgsql-bugs form?
>
> Alternately, or perhaps additionally, a script (hopefully bundled with
> postgres) which collects at least the non-
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh
wrote:
> På tirsdag 10. april 2018 kl. 04:36:27, skrev Craig James <
> cja...@emolecules.com>:
>
> One of our four "big iron" (spinning disks) servers went belly up today.
> (Thanks, Postgres and pgbackrest! Ea
One of our four "big iron" (spinning disks) servers went belly up today.
(Thanks, Postgres and pgbackrest! Easy recovery.) We're planning to move to
a cloud service at the end of the year, so bad timing on this. We didn't
want to buy any more hardware, but now it looks like we have to.
I followed
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-03-16 13:37:05 -0700, Craig James wrote:
> > The timing of the second query is excellent, and is what I expected. I
> > don't understand why including a function-defined column in the view
> w
Here's a weird one I can't figure out: the definitions of several columns
of a view, which are not used in a query at all, have a massive effect on
the query planner, causing it to choose a seqscan over the largest table in
our database when it should be using the primary key for the join.
Backgrou
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Rick Otten
wrote:
> Some of my data processes use large quantities of temp space - 5 or 6T
> anyway.
>
> We are running in Google Cloud. In order to get the best performance out
> of all of my queries that might need temp space, I've configured temp space
> on a
15 matches
Mail list logo
