On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Piergiorgio Buongiovanni > <piergiorgio.buongiova...@netspa.it> wrote: >> I reused the previous command to re-set the sequence value to the right one, >> but I see that the START value is now 59100. I reused the previous command >> another time and the START value is now 30440. >> >> I think this is a bug. I have a lot of problems with this sequence. > > Sequences wouldn't directly affect retrieval times. But one way you > could get both of these symptoms is by having an application which > inserts many rows but aborts and rolls back the inserts without > committing. Perhaps a large copy which is interrupted. That would fill > the table with garbage dead records which could slow down retrieval > depending on the access method and also increase the sequence value.
If this is what happened, CLUSTER on the table might be enough to fix the problem. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
