Re: Performance degradation after successive UPDATE's
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance degradation after successive UPDATE's |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4395855F.5050705@Yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance degradation after successive UPDATE's ("Assaf Yaari" <assafy@mobixell.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 12/6/2005 4:08 AM, Assaf Yaari wrote: > Thanks Bruno, > > Issuing VACUUM FULL seems not to have influence on the time. > I've added to my script VACUUM ANALYZE every 100 UPDATE's and run the > test again (on different record) and the time still increase. I think he meant - run VACUUM FULL once, - adjust FSM settings to database size and turnover ratio - run VACUUM ANALYZE more frequent from there on. Jan > > Any other ideas? > > Thanks, > Assaf. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruno Wolff III [mailto:bruno@wolff.to] >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 10:36 PM >> To: Assaf Yaari >> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org >> Subject: Re: Performance degradation after successive UPDATE's >> >> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 19:05:01 +0200, >> Assaf Yaari <assafy@mobixell.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm using PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on Linux RedHat WS 3.0. >> > >> > My application updates counters in DB. I left a test over the night >> > that increased counter of specific record. After night running >> > (several hundreds of thousands updates), I found out that the time >> > spent on UPDATE increased to be more than 1.5 second (at >> the beginning >> > it was less than 10ms)! Issuing VACUUM ANALYZE and even >> reboot didn't >> > seemed to solve the problem. >> >> You need to be running vacuum more often to get rid of the >> deleted rows (update is essentially insert + delete). Once >> you get too many, plain vacuum won't be able to clean them up >> without raising the value you use for FSM. By now the table >> is really bloated and you probably want to use vacuum full on it. >> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: