[PERFORM] Performance of vacuumlo

2015-04-14 Thread Andreas Joseph Krogh
Hi all.   I have a pg_largeobject of ~300GB size and when I run "vacuumlo -n ", I get:   Would remove 82172 large objects from database "".   So I'm running without "-n" to do the actual work, but it seems to take forever. The disks are 8 SAS 10K HDD drives in RAID5.   Any hints on how long this

Re: [PERFORM] unlogged tables

2015-04-14 Thread Jim Nasby
On 4/14/15 10:56 AM, dgabriel wrote: David G Johnston wrote Well, that is half right anyway. UNLOGGED tables obey checkpoints just like any other table. The missing feature is an option to leaved restored the last checkpoint. Instead, not knowing whether there were changes since the last chec

Re: [PERFORM] Some performance testing?

2015-04-14 Thread Josh Berkus
Scott, > Can confirm that for pg purposes, 3.2 is basically broken in some not > to great ways. We've had servers that were overloaded at load factors > of 20 or 30 drop down to 5 or less with just a change from 3.2 to > 3.11/3.13 on ubuntu 12.04 That's correct, and 3.5 shares the same problems.

Re: [PERFORM] unlogged tables

2015-04-14 Thread Jeff Janes
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:28 PM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Jim Nasby > wrote: > >> >> >> There's been recent discussion of adding support for read-only tables. If >> we had those, we might be able to support something like... >> >> I

Re: [PERFORM] unlogged tables

2015-04-14 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Yves Dorfsman wrote: > On 2015-04-13 17:49, Jeff Janes wrote: > > > > One way would be to lock dirty buffers from unlogged relations into > > shared_buffers (which hardly seems like a good thing) until the start of > a > > "super-checkpoint" and then write them al

Re: [PERFORM] unlogged tables

2015-04-14 Thread dgabriel
David G Johnston wrote > Well, that is half right anyway. UNLOGGED tables obey checkpoints just > like any other table. The missing feature is an option to leaved restored > the last checkpoint. Instead, not knowing whether there were changes > since the last checkpoint, the system truncated the

Re: [PERFORM] unlogged tables

2015-04-14 Thread Yves Dorfsman
On 2015-04-13 17:49, Jeff Janes wrote: > > One way would be to lock dirty buffers from unlogged relations into > shared_buffers (which hardly seems like a good thing) until the start of a > "super-checkpoint" and then write them all out as fast as possible (which kind > of defeats checkpoint_compl