"Lokendra Dixit" <lokendra.di...@rmsi.com> wrote: > RAM: 2 GB You do realize how small that is for a database server, I hope. Many people are walking around with cell phones in their pockets that have a lot more. This could contribute to severe slowdown with even minimal growth of the database, as cached access will suddenly become disk access, which is orders of magnitude slower. > (Embedded image moved to file: pic00041.jpg) It's much better to include such information in text form than to use a screen image. Anyway, according to that you didn't change autovacuum values from the defaults. You might want to make autovacuum a bit more aggressive to try to keep table sizes down; but I think the root of the problem is that a pg_dump and restore will normally pack the data very tightly on disk. In normal operations thing become less tight as index pages split, etc., and you are probably going from a very high cache hit ratio to a lower one, causing the slowdown. For about $35 you could probably double or triple the amount of RAM you have available and totally eliminate the problem. You have probably spent a lot more money on staff time to deal with the problem than the RAM will cost.
-Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
