Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Erik Aronesty wrote: > is there some way to view the level of "bloat that needs full" in each > table, so i could write a script that alerts me to the need of a > "vacuum full"  without waiting for random queries to "get slow"? > > looking at the results of the "bloa

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-05 Thread Erik Aronesty
> See ALTER TABLE and CREATE TABLE  (and the Index variants). > > ALTER TABLE foo SET (fillfactor=90); I'll try that. > This will leave on average, 10% of every 8k block empty and allow updates to > columns to more likely live within the same block. Good for the items table. Probably bad for th

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-04 Thread Scott Carey
On 6/4/09 6:16 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Erik Aronesty wrote: >> Seems like "VACUUM FULL" could figure out to do that too depending on >> the bloat-to-table-size ratio ... >> >>   - copy all rows to new table >>   - lock for a millisecond while renaming table

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-04 Thread Scott Carey
On 6/4/09 4:31 AM, "Erik Aronesty" wrote: >> read the entry on pg_stat_all_tables > > yeah, it's running ... vacuum'ed last night > > it's odd, to me, that the performance would degrade so extremely > (noticeably) over the course of one year on a table which has few > insertions, no deletions,

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Erik Aronesty wrote: > Seems like "VACUUM FULL" could figure out to do that too depending on > the bloat-to-table-size ratio ... > >   - copy all rows to new table >   - lock for a millisecond while renaming tables >   - drop old table. You'd have to lock the table

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-04 Thread Erik Aronesty
> read the entry on pg_stat_all_tables yeah, it's running ... vacuum'ed last night it's odd, to me, that the performance would degrade so extremely (noticeably) over the course of one year on a table which has few insertions, no deletions,and daily updates of an integer non null column (stock lev

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-03 Thread Reid Thompson
Erik Aronesty wrote: I think, perhaps, autovac wasn't running on that machine. Is there any way to check to see if it's running? since it looks like stats are on too http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/postgresql/vol3/ViewingCollectedStatistics.html read the entry on pg_stat_all_tables

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-03 Thread Tom Lane
Erik Aronesty writes: > I think, perhaps, autovac wasn't running on that machine. > Is there any way to check to see if it's running? > I have enabled all the options , and I know it's running on my other > servers because I see > LOG: autovacuum entries (a profusion of them) > I suspect,

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-03 Thread Erik Aronesty
I think, perhaps, autovac wasn't running on that machine. Is there any way to check to see if it's running? I have enabled all the options , and I know it's running on my other servers because I see LOG: autovacuum entries (a profusion of them) I suspect, perhaps, that it's just not showin

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-06-01 Thread Tom Lane
Erik Aronesty writes: > but why wasn't autovac enough to reclaim at least *most* of the space? Autovac isn't meant to reclaim major amounts of bloat; it's more in the line of trying to prevent it from happening in the first place. To reclaim bloat it would have to execute VACUUM FULL, or some ot

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-05-31 Thread Erik Aronesty
it was all vacuum full...thanks the other 2 servers truncate and reload that table from time to time ... IE: they are always vacuumed as the "master" ... that server never does it... hence the bloat but why wasn't autovac enough to reclaim at least *most* of the space? that table *does* get up

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-05-31 Thread Tom Lane
Craig Ringer writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm betting on varying degrees of table bloat. Have you tried vacuum >> full, cluster, etc? > Or, if you have been using VACUUM FULL, try REINDEXing the tables, > because it could easily be index bloat. Clustering the table will take > care of index bloa

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-05-31 Thread Craig Ringer
Tom Lane wrote: > Erik Aronesty writes: >> I have 3 servers, all with identical databases, and each performing >> very differently for the same queries. > > I'm betting on varying degrees of table bloat. Have you tried vacuum > full, cluster, etc? Or, if you have been using VACUUM FULL, try REI

Re: [PERFORM] degenerate performance on one server of 3

2009-05-31 Thread Tom Lane
Erik Aronesty writes: > I have 3 servers, all with identical databases, and each performing > very differently for the same queries. I'm betting on varying degrees of table bloat. Have you tried vacuum full, cluster, etc? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance