Re: [PERFORM] Memory usage of auto-vacuum

2011-07-12 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello, Here is an update on my problem : - the problem was caused by "VACUUM ANALYZE", but by a plain "VACUUM" ; - it was exactly the same with manual and automatic "VACUUM ANALYZE" ; - it was caused by a GIN index on a tsvector, using a very high (1) statistics target. Setting back the

Re: [PERFORM] Memory usage of auto-vacuum

2011-07-10 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Tom! Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:23:18 -0400, you wrote: > Gael Le Mignot writes: >> Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:06:16 +0200, you wrote: >>>> BTW, what's your PostgreSQL release? I assume at least 8.3 since you're >>>> using FTS? >> It

Re: [PERFORM] Memory usage of auto-vacuum

2011-07-09 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Guillaume! Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:06:16 +0200, you wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:00 +0200, Gael Le Mignot wrote: >> Hello Guillaume! >> >> Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:53:14 +0200, you wrote: >> >> > I don't quite understand how you can get up to

Re: [PERFORM] Memory usage of auto-vacuum

2011-07-09 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Guillaume! Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:53:14 +0200, you wrote: > I don't quite understand how you can get up to 1GB used by your process. > According to your configuration, and unless I'm wrong, it shouldn't take > more than 40MB. Perhaps a bit more, but not 1GB. So, how did you find > this nu

Re: [PERFORM] Memory usage of auto-vacuum

2011-07-09 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Guillaume! Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:33:03 +0200, you wrote: > Hi, > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 09:25 +0200, Gael Le Mignot wrote: >> [...] >> We are running a PostgreSQL 8.4 database, with two tables containing a >> lot (> 1 million) moderatly small rows. It

Re: [PERFORM] Memory usage of auto-vacuum

2011-07-09 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Craig! Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:31:47 +0800, you wrote: > On 9/07/2011 3:25 PM, Gael Le Mignot wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> We are running a PostgreSQL 8.4 database, with two tables containing a >> lot (> 1 million) moderatly small rows. It contain

[PERFORM] Memory usage of auto-vacuum

2011-07-09 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello, We are running a PostgreSQL 8.4 database, with two tables containing a lot (> 1 million) moderatly small rows. It contains some btree indexes, and one of the two tables contains a gin full-text index. We noticed that the autovacuum process tend to use a lot of memory, bumping the

Re: [PERFORM] Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows

2010-12-18 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Scott! Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:06:15 -0700, you wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Craig James > wrote: >> RAID5 is a Really Bad Idea for any database.  It is S...L...O...W.  It does >> NOT give better redundancy and security; RAID 10 with a battery-backed RAID >> controller card

Re: [PERFORM] Periodically slow inserts

2010-10-22 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello, Thanks to everyone who gave me hints and feedbacks. I managed to solve the problem. My understanding of what was happening is the following : - The gin index (as explained on [1]), stores temporary list, and when they grow big enough, those are dispatched into the real index. Vacuum

Re: [PERFORM] Periodically slow inserts

2010-10-21 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Tom! Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:55:48 -0400, you wrote: > Gael Le Mignot writes: >> The problem is when we index objects into the full-text search part of >> the database (which a DELETE and then an INSERT into a specific table), >> the INSERT sometimes take a lo

Re: [PERFORM] Periodically slow inserts

2010-10-21 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello Leonardo! Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:15:40 +0100 (BST), you wrote: >> We are using PostgreSQL for storing data and full-text search indexes >> for the webiste of a daily newspaper. We are very happy overall with the >> results, but we have one "weird" behaviour that we would like to solv

[PERFORM] Periodically slow inserts

2010-10-21 Thread Gael Le Mignot
Hello, We are using PostgreSQL for storing data and full-text search indexes for the webiste of a daily newspaper. We are very happy overall with the results, but we have one "weird" behaviour that we would like to solve. The problem is when we index objects into the full-text search part o