Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Greg Smith
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Jean-David Beyer wrote: I am pretty sure they will never upgrade RHEL5 to the 8.2 series because they do not do it to get new features. That's correct. I do know that if I try to use .rpms from other sources, I can get in a lot of trouble with incompatible libraries. And

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:51:42 -0500 Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Luckily I do not seem to be troubled by the problems experienced by > > the O.P. > > > > I do know that if I try to use .rpms from other sources, I can get > > in a lot of t

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Jean-David Beyer
Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Decibel! wrote: >>> On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:26 PM, gabor wrote: hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Gábor Farkas wrote: >> we are moving one database from postgresql-7.

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Tom Lane
Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FWIW, 20k rows isn't all that big, so I'm assuming that the > descriptions make the table very wide. Unless those descriptions are > what's being updated frequently, I suggest you put those in a > separate table (vertical partitioning). That will make th

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Bill Moran
In response to Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Decibel! wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:26 PM, gabor wrote: > >> hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Gábor Farkas wrote: > we are moving one database from postgresql-7.4 to postgresql-8.2.4.

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Jean-David Beyer
Decibel! wrote: > On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:26 PM, gabor wrote: >> hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Gábor Farkas wrote: we are moving one database from postgresql-7.4 to postgresql-8.2.4. >>> any particular reason why not 8.2.5? >> >> the distribution

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread tv
> FWIW, 20k rows isn't all that big, so I'm assuming that the > descriptions make the table very wide. Unless those descriptions are > what's being updated frequently, I suggest you put those in a > separate table (vertical partitioning). That will make the main table > much easier to vacuum, as we

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Decibel!
On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:56 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote: We are doing that here, i.e. set up autovacuum not to touch big tables, and cover those with nightly vacuums if there is still some activity on them, and one weekly complete vacuum of the whole DB ("vacuum" without other params, preferably as the

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Decibel!
On Nov 16, 2007, at 7:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The table was quite huge (say 20k of products along with detailed descriptions etc.) and was completely updated and about 12x each day, i.e. it qrew to about 12x the original size (and 11/12 of the rows were dead). This caused a serious s

Re: [PERFORM] autovacuum: recommended?

2007-11-19 Thread Decibel!
On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:26 PM, gabor wrote: hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Gábor Farkas wrote: we are moving one database from postgresql-7.4 to postgresql-8.2.4. any particular reason why not 8.2.5? the distribution i use only has 8.2.4 currently.