On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Are you using default values for autovacuum? Could you prove a little
more detail by setting pg_autovacuum debug with -d 2
Sure ... just restarted it with that setup ... btw ...
Josh asked me to post this, since it was just odd ... I have
pg_autovacuum running on the table, with output looking for it looking
like:
[2004-09-30 02:29:47 PM] Performing: VACUUM ANALYZE public.shown
[2004-09-30 02:35:11 PM] Performing: ANALYZE public.shown
[2004-09-30 02:40:22 PM]
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Its a *very* busy table ... and running on a 7.4.0 database ...
I wonder how many tuples are really in this table. Almost all of the 190ms is
spent in the two sequential scans of it. Which is an awful lot of time for a
32 tuple table.
You say it's
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You say it's *very* busy is it possible there are hundreds or thousands of
tuples in there that are uncommitted or committed after this query starts?
More specifically, I bet there's a huge number of completely empty
pages, which would be read by a seqscan
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You say it's *very* busy is it possible there are hundreds or thousands of
tuples in there that are uncommitted or committed after this query starts?
More specifically, I bet there's a huge number of completely empty
pages,
Greg Stark wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Its a *very* busy table ... and running on a 7.4.0 database ...
I wonder how many tuples are really in this table. Almost all of the 190ms is
spent in the two sequential scans of it. Which is an awful lot of time for a
32 tuple
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You say it's *very* busy is it possible there are hundreds or thousands of
tuples in there that are uncommitted or committed after this query starts?
More specifically, I bet there's a huge number of completely empty
pages, which would
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Are you using default values for autovacuum? Could you prove a little
more detail by setting pg_autovacuum debug with -d 2
Sure ... just restarted it with that setup ... btw ... I'm using -L for
logging ... what is the usual way of gettin git to
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Are you using default values for autovacuum? Could you prove a
little more detail by setting pg_autovacuum debug with -d 2
Sure ... just restarted it with that setup ... btw ... I'm using -L
for logging ... what is the
