Floris Bos / Maxnet wrote:
The following settings differ from the defaults:

--
shared_buffers=3500MB
maintenance_work_mem = 128MB
fsync = off
synchronous_commit = off
checkpoint_segments = 25
--


==
Table layout
==

--
                                   Table "public.posts_index"
   Column   |          Type          | Modifiers
------------+------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------- cid | integer | not null default nextval('posts_index_cid
_seq'::regclass)
 groupid    | integer                | not null
 startdate  | integer                | not null
 poster     | character varying(64)  | not null
 basefile   | character varying(64)  | not null
 subject    | character varying(255) | not null
 size       | real                   |
 nfo        | boolean                |
 c          | boolean                |
 parts      | integer                |
 totalparts | integer                |
 imdb       | integer                |
 ng1        | boolean                | default false
 g2         | integer                | default 0
 g3         | integer                | default 0
 data       | bytea                  |
Indexes:
    "posts_index5_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (cid) CLUSTER
    "gr_idx" btree (groupid, (- cid))
    "pgb_idx" btree (poster, groupid, basefile)
--

Only noticed problems with the pgb_idx index so far.


I have been trying to reproduce the problem but no success so far. I made myself a table that matches yours, then I wrote a little perl script to fill it with random data. (The script also writes out a text file I can use to re-query things).

I fill the db, then add the indexes. Then I test lookup every record I added, and find them all.

So, a few questions:

1) did you dump/restore into 8.4beta1 first and then upgrade the program? Or did you dump/restore into 8.4beta2?

2) did you use any of the concurrent restore options?

3) do you do any updates or deletes to the table after you restore it?

4) do you do any other operations on the table (vacuum, cluster, etc..)?

5) got any triggers or stored procs?

6) To the -hackers: I write the records and then refind them in the exact same order, would it be a better test to search for records in a more random order? would it make a difference? Would searching for some but not all make a difference?


-Andy

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

Reply via email to