For what it's worth, this week's run covered even more months than
last week's did, and ran in about 5 1/2 hours, with no slowdowns,
under a similar system load. So, it could have been a one-time thing
or some combination of factors that will be difficult to reproduce.
--
Mike Nolan
--
Sent via
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Michael Nolan wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Melvin Davidson
> wrote:
>
>> Just curious. Have you checked that the tables are being vacuum/analyzed
>> periodically and that the statistics are up to date? Try running the
>> following query to verify
OK, you might also want to look at the current values of shared_buffers,
temp_buffers & work_mem in postgresql.conf.
If they seem correct/appropritate for your total shmmax memory
(kernel.shmmax parameter), then if the slowdown occurs again, monitor top
and see if it's really PostgreSQL that is sl
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> Just curious. Have you checked that the tables are being vacuum/analyzed
> periodically and that the statistics are up to date? Try running the
> following query to verify:
>
>
A vacuum analyze runs every night and there would not have bee
Just curious. Have you checked that the tables are being vacuum/analyzed
periodically and that the statistics are up to date? Try running the
following query to verify:
SELECT n.nspname,
s.relname,
c.reltuples::bigint,
-- n_live_tup,
n_tup_ins,
n_tup_upd,
n
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 9.1.2015 23:14, Michael Nolan wrote:
> > I'm running 9.3.5 on a virtual machine with 5 cores and 24 GB of
> > memory. Disk is on a SAN.
> >
> > I have a task that runs weekly that processes possibly as many as
> > 120 months worth of data,
The function is a complicated plpgsql function that makes numerous database
queries, all read-only. (Other parts of that program may make changes to
the database.)
The first database shutdown and the shutdown/reboot later on were both
'clean' shutdowns, so there shouldn't have been any kind of tra
On 01/09/2015 07:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 9.1.2015 23:14, Michael Nolan wrote:
I'm running 9.3.5 on a virtual machine with 5 cores and 24 GB of
memory. Disk is on a SAN.
I have a task that runs weekly that processes possibly as many as
120 months worth of data, one month at a time. Since
On 9.1.2015 23:14, Michael Nolan wrote:
> I'm running 9.3.5 on a virtual machine with 5 cores and 24 GB of
> memory. Disk is on a SAN.
>
> I have a task that runs weekly that processes possibly as many as
> 120 months worth of data, one month at a time. Since moving to 9.3.5
> (from 8.2!!) the a
I'm running 9.3.5 on a virtual machine with 5 cores and 24 GB of
memory. Disk is on a SAN.
I have a task that runs weekly that processes possibly as many as 120
months worth of data, one month at a time. Since moving to 9.3.5
(from 8.2!!) the average time for a month has been 3 minutes or less.
10 matches
Mail list logo