I do use BayesStore::PgSQL and although I don't have autovacuum turned on, I do vacuum the database nightly (as well as a weekly vacuum full).I didn't know that 8.1 offered was that much faster, but it's worth a shot. I'll also have to check out amavisd-new
2.4. The pen-pal whitelisting sounds g
> >postgreSQL v8.0.4
SM writes:
> Upgrade to Postgresql 8.1.4 if you can. Turn on autovacuum.
> Use BayesStore::PgSQL.
Very good advice.
As an interesting side-information, I can say that
when using pen-pals whitelisting with amavisd-new,
SQL database maintenance operations (purging old records
At 09:23 03-08-2006, Dan wrote:
Over the past few weeks, my company's mail server has been
experiencing high loads that result in SA skipping emails. I use a
postgres database to manage bayes, awl and userprefs. I am pretty
sure that it is the bayes db that is causing the high load and
resul
Dan,
> Over the past few weeks, my company's mail server has been experiencing
> high loads that result in SA skipping emails. I use a postgres database to
> manage bayes, awl and userprefs. I am pretty sure that it is the bayes db
> that is causing the high load ...
Are you using a general-pur
Thanks for the advice!I guess the consensus is to buy more RAM and/or switch to mysql.-Dan
Title: Message
-Original Message-From: Dan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:24
PMTo: users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: postres
bayes db and high load
Over the past few weeks, my company's mail server has been experiencing
high loads t
Dan-
Make sure you are vacuuming your database. I have seen similar
postgresql slow downs with a large database that has not been vacuumed.
For a permanent solution I would suggest migrating to mysql instead. I
love postgresql but it has a lot of overhead designed to make it a
transactiona
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Dan wrote:
> The mail servers stats:
> ~3500 email/day
> 2GHz Intel Celeron
> 768M ram
Throw some more memory at it, if the motherboard supports it.
> Aug 2 14:48:19 mail spamd[3675]: spamd: identified spam ( 25.9/5.0) for
> bug:0 in 5525.1 seconds, 2163 bytes.
OUCH! 5500 s
