On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 04:27 +0530, raghavendra t wrote:
> I'm sorry I couldn't come up with more, but what you've
> provided so
> far is roughly equivalent to me telling you that it takes over
> four
> hours to travel to see my Uncle Jim, and then asking you
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:47 AM, raghavendra t wrote:
> and deletes. We also has the weekly maintance of VACUUM, but still reindex
> takes lot of time.
If you only VACUUM once a week, *everything* is going to take a lot of time.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-perfor
raghavendra t wrote:
> System Config
> -
> CPU - Intel* Xenon* CPU
> CPU Speed - 3.16 GHz
> Server Model - Sun Fire X4150
> RAM-Size - 16GB
The disk system matters a lot, too. How many drives do you have in
what RAID configuration(s)?
> My question is something like Stev
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 19:17 +0530, raghavendra t wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> System Config
> -
> CPU - Intel® Xenon® CPU
> CPU Speed - 3.16 GHz
> Server Model - Sun Fire X4150
> RAM-Size - 16GB
>
> Steve:
> So am I to understand I don't need to do daily reindexing
Hi All,
System Config
-
CPU - Intel® Xenon® CPU
CPU Speed - 3.16 GHz
Server Model - Sun Fire X4150
RAM-Size - 16GB
> Steve:
So am I to understand I don't need to do daily reindexing as a maintenance
> measure with 8.3.7 on FreeBSD.
My question is something like Steve's, why
So am I to understand I don't need to do daily reindexing as a
maintenance measure with 8.3.7 on FreeBSD.
Sometimes it's better to have indexes with some space in them so every
insert doesn't hit a full index page and triggers a page split to make
some space.
Of course if the index is 90
raghavendra t wrote:
1. What are the parameters will effect, when issuing the REINDEX command
2. Best possible way to increase the spead of the REINDEX
If you haven't done the usual general tuning on your server, that might
help. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server i
On 03/31/2010 11:11 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM, raghavendra t
wrote:
Why are you doing that?
Our table face lot of updates and deletes in a day, so we prefer reindex to
update the indexes as well overcome with a corrupted index.
do you ha
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM, raghavendra t
> wrote:
Why are you doing that?
>> Our table face lot of updates and deletes in a day, so we prefer reindex to
>> update the indexes as well overcome with a corrupted index.
>>
>
> do you have a corrupted index? if not,
>
> I'm sorry I couldn't come up with more, but what you've provided so
> far is roughly equivalent to me telling you that it takes over four
> hours to travel to see my Uncle Jim, and then asking you how I can
> find out how he's doing in less time than that. There's just not
> much to go on. :-
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM, raghavendra t
wrote:
>
>>>Why are you doing that?
> Our table face lot of updates and deletes in a day, so we prefer reindex to
> update the indexes as well overcome with a corrupted index.
>
do you have a corrupted index? if not, there is nothing to do...
REINDEX
raghavendra t wrote:
> Thank you for the suggestion.
I'm sorry I couldn't come up with more, but what you've provided so
far is roughly equivalent to me telling you that it takes over four
hours to travel to see my Uncle Jim, and then asking you how I can
find out how he's doing in less time tha
Thank you for the suggestion.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> raghavendra t wrote:
>
> > my question is, how to get a performance on the existing indexes.
> > You mean to say , drop the existing indexes and create the index
> > with CONCURRENTLY. Does this give the perfor
raghavendra t wrote:
> my question is, how to get a performance on the existing indexes.
> You mean to say , drop the existing indexes and create the index
> with CONCURRENTLY. Does this give the performance back.
You would normally want to create first and then drop the old ones,
unless the o
>
> If this is a one-time fix for a corrupted index, did you look at
> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY? You could avoid any down time while you
> fix things up.
>
Using CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY will avoid the exclusive locks on the table,
but my question is, how to get a performance on the existing ind
raghavendra t wrote:
> overcome with a corrupted index.
If this is a one-time fix for a corrupted index, did you look at
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY? You could avoid any down time while you
fix things up.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/sql-createindex.html
-Kevin
--
Sent v
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for the update,
>>What does the table look like? What indexes are there?
Table has a combination of byteas. Indexes are b-tree and Partial
>>Why are you doing that?
Our table face lot of updates and deletes in a day, so we prefer reindex to
update the indexes as well overcom
raghavendra t wrote:
> I have a table with 40GB size, it has few indexes on it.
What does the table look like? What indexes are there?
> When i try to REINDEX on the table,
Why are you doing that?
> its take a long time.
How long?
> I tried increasing the maintenance_work_mem, but s
Hi All,
I have a table with 40GB size, it has few indexes on it. When i try to
REINDEX on the table, its take a long time. I tried increasing the
maintenance_work_mem, but still i havnt find a satisfying result.
Questions
===
1. What are the parameters will effect, when issuing the REINDEX co
19 matches
Mail list logo
