On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 07:27 -0500, Decibel! wrote:
> Take a look at the stuff at http://decibel.org/~decibel/pervasive/, it'd
> hopefully provide a useful starting point.
A bit offtrack, but I was reading the articles and noticed this in the
bottom. Is this a typo or ...
Making PostreSQL perva
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:58:10AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> >I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs. I think
> >a rewrite from the ground up might be best... I keep seeing people
> >doing vacuum full on this list and I'm t
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:01:12PM -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Frank Schoep wrote:
>
> >On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >>On 9/12/07, Mikko Partio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>?
> >>>Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?
> >>
> >>?
> >>Eith
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gavin M. Roy escribió:
> How many backends do you have at any given time? Have you tried using
> something like pgBouncer to lower backend usage? How about your IO
> situation? Have you run something like sysstat to see what iowait is
> at?
backe
> > Isn't that the point of the documentation? I mean, if the existing,
> > official manual has been demonstrated (through countless mailing list
> > help requests) to not sufficiently explain a given topic, shouldn't
> > it be revised?
Or it proves that no one bothers to read the docs.
> > One
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I think both things are needed actually. The current docs were
started back when pg 7.2 roamed the land, and they've been updated a
bit at a time...
No argument here that ultimately the documentation needs to be updated as
well. I was just suggestin
On 9/13/07, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >
> >> I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs. I
> >> think a rewrite from the ground up might be best... I keep seeing
> >
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs. I
think a rewrite from the ground up might be best... I keep seeing
people doing vacuum full on this list and I'm thinking it's as
mu
How many backends do you have at any given time? Have you tried using
something like pgBouncer to lower backend usage? How about your IO
situation? Have you run something like sysstat to see what iowait is
at?
On 9/11/07, Ruben Rubio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---
On 9/13/07, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs. I think
> > a rewrite from the ground up might be best... I keep seeing people
> > doing vacuum full on this list and I'm thinking it
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs. I think
a rewrite from the ground up might be best... I keep seeing people
doing vacuum full on this list and I'm thinking it's as much because of
the way the docs represent vacuum full
On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Frank Schoep wrote:
On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 9/12/07, Mikko Partio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
…
Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?
…
Either one does what a vacuum full did / does, but generally does
it better.
On topic of R
Scott Marlowe escribió:
> > Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?
>
> I don't think so. reindex (which runs on tables and indexes, so the
> name is a bit confusing, I admit) basically was originally a "repair"
> operation that rewrote the whole relation and wasn't completely
> transaction sa
On 9/12/07, Frank Schoep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On 9/12/07, Mikko Partio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> …
> >> Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?
> >
> > …
> > Either one does what a vacuum full did / does, but generally does
> > i
On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 9/12/07, Mikko Partio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
…
Aren't you mixing up REINDEX and CLUSTER?
…
Either one does what a vacuum full did / does, but generally does
it better.
On topic of REINDEX / VACUUM FULL versus a CLUSTER / VACUUM ANALY
On 9/12/07, Mikko Partio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/07, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Try a REINDEX. VACUUM FULL is especially hard on the indexes, and it's
> > > > easy for them to seriously bloat.
> >
On 9/12/07, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Try a REINDEX. VACUUM FULL is especially hard on the indexes, and it's
> > > easy for them to seriously bloat.
> >
> > Reindex is done everyday after VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE
Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'm getting more and more motivated to rewrite the vacuum docs. I
think a rewrite from the ground up might be best... I keep seeing
people doing vacuum full on this list and I'm thinking it's as much
because of the way the docs represent vacuum full as anything. Is
that t
On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Decibel! escribió:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 09:49:37AM +0200, Ruben Rubio wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi?:
> Last time I had this problem i solved it stopping web
Decibel! escribió:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 09:49:37AM +0200, Ruben Rubio wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi?:
Last time I had this problem i solved it stopping website, restarting
database, vacuumm it, run again website. But I g
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 09:49:37AM +0200, Ruben Rubio wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi?:
> >> Last time I had this problem i solved it stopping website, restarting
> >> database, vacuumm it, run again website. But I guess this is going to
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> Last time I had this problem i solved it stopping website, restarting
>> database, vacuumm it, run again website. But I guess this is going to
>> happen again.
>>
>> I would like to detect and solve the problem. Any idea
> Last time I had this problem i solved it stopping website, restarting
> database, vacuumm it, run again website. But I guess this is going to
> happen again.
>
> I would like to detect and solve the problem. Any ideas to detect it?
Do you have very long transactions? Maybe some client that is c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I having the same problem I told here a few weeks before. Database is
using too much resources again.
I do a vacumm full each day, but seems it is not working. I am preparing
an update to postgres 8.2.4 (actually I am using at 8.1.3, and tests f
24 matches
Mail list logo
