On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> Aside from a bug, that's the only reason I can think for a pg backend
> to bail out like that. Well, the connection could have been cut off by
> other means (ie: someone tripped on the cable or something), but lets
> not dwell on those optio
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> # REINDEX INDEX new_idx_userid;
> server closed the connection unexpectedly
> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
> before or while processing the request.
> The connection to the server was lost. Attempting res
Btw, hardware is not an issue. My db has been working fine for a
while. Smaller poorer systems around the web run InnoDB databases. I
wouldn't touch that with a barge pole.
I have a hardware RAID controller, not "fake". It's a good quality
battery-backed 3Ware:
http://192.19.193.26/products/serial
Thanks for these suggestions.
I am beginning to wonder if the issue is deeper.
I set autovacuum to off, then turned off all the connections to the
database, and did a manual vacuum just to see how long it takes.
This was last night my time. I woke up this morning and it has still
not finished.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Phoenix wrote:
> TOP does not show much beyond "postmaster". How should I use TOP and
> what info can I give you? This is what it looks like:
We're basically looking to see if the postmaster process doing the
vacuuming or reindexing is stuck in a D state, which m
On April 17, 2011, Phoenix wrote:
> >> Surely this is not tenable for enterprise environments? I am on a
> >> 64bit RedHat server with dual CPU Intel Woodcrest or whatever that was
> >> called. Postgres is 8.2.9.
> >>
.. and you have essentially 1 disk drive. Your hardware is not sized for a
da
Thanks Scott.
I have shared huge amounts of info in my emails to Merlin and you.
Intentionally not shared in public. Apologies if you are feeling
tired.
The reason I need to REINDEX is because a simple SELECT query based on
the index column is taking ages. It used to take less than a second. I
wa
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Phoenix Kiula
> wrote:
>> Sorry, rejuvenating a thread that was basically unanswered.
>>
>> I closed the database for any kinds of access to focus on maintenance
>> operations, killed all earlier processes s
>
>
> How do DB folks do this with small maintenance windows? This is for a
> very high traffic website so it's beginning to get embarrassing.
Normally there is no need to issue reindex. What's your reason for the need?
Jesper
>
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
> Sorry, rejuvenating a thread that was basically unanswered.
>
> I closed the database for any kinds of access to focus on maintenance
> operations, killed all earlier processes so that my maintenance is the
> only stuff going on.
>
> REINDEX
Sorry, rejuvenating a thread that was basically unanswered.
I closed the database for any kinds of access to focus on maintenance
operations, killed all earlier processes so that my maintenance is the
only stuff going on.
REINDEX is still taking 3 hours -- and it is still not finished!
Similarly
11 matches
Mail list logo
