Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?
От | Jonah H. Harris |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 36e682920709230956p1312745eif1c6ba7a342dae3d@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration? (Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration?
Re: Possible explanations for catastrophic performace deterioration? |
Список | pgsql-performance |
You didn't specify the database size, but my guess is that the total data size about enough to fit in shared_buffers or kernel cache. On the new system (or dropped/recreated database), it would've all or mostly fit in memory which would make things like count(*) work quickly. On the old database, you probably had a lot of fragmentation which would've caused significantly more I/O to be performed thereby causing a slowdown. You could compare relation sizes to check easily. My guess is that a vacuum full would've brought the other database back up to speed. In the future, you probably want to set fillfactor to a reasonable amount to account for updates-to-blocks-between-vacuum to try and capture as few row-migrations as possible. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: