Re: Slow count(*) again...

On Oct 12, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Dan Harris wrote:

>  On 10/11/10 8:02 PM, Scott Carey wrote:
>> would give you a 1MB read-ahead.  Also, consider XFS and its built-in defragmentation.  I have found that a longer
livedpostgres DB will get extreme 
>> file fragmentation over time and sequential scans end up mostly random.  On-line file defrag helps tremendously.
>>
> We just had a corrupt table caused by an XFS online defrag.  I'm scared
> to use this again while the db is live.  Has anyone else found this to
> be safe?  But, I can vouch for the fragmentation issue, it happens very
> quickly in our system.
>

What version?  I'm using the latest CentoOS extras build.

We've been doing online defrag for a while now on a very busy database with > 8TB of data.  Not that that means there
areno bugs...  

It is a relatively simple thing in xfs -- it writes a new file to temp in a way that allocates contiguous space if
available,then if the file has not been modified since it was re-written it is essentially moved on top of the other
one. This should be safe provided the journaling and storage is safe, etc. 


> -Dan
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance