On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:41:53PM +, Kristian Ejvind wrote:
> Thanks Kenneth. In fact we've already partitioned the largest history* and
> trends* tables
> and that has been running fine for a year. Performance was vastly improved.
> But since you
> can't have a unique index on a
Thanks Kenneth. In fact we've already partitioned the largest history* and
trends* tables
and that has been running fine for a year. Performance was vastly improved. But
since you
can't have a unique index on a partitioned table in postgres 10, we haven't
worked on that.
Regards
Kristian
?On
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:07:55AM +, Kristian Ejvind wrote:
> Hi
>
> This will be a rather lengthy post, just to give the full (I hope) picture.
> We're using Zabbix for monitoring and I'm having problems
> understanding why the deletion of rows in the events table is so slow.
>
> Zabbix:
Hi
This will be a rather lengthy post, just to give the full (I hope) picture.
We're using Zabbix for monitoring and I'm having problems
understanding why the deletion of rows in the events table is so slow.
Zabbix: 4.2 (never mind the name of the db - it is 4.2)
new values per second: ~400
