Re: [PERFORM] ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 1821556134 in pg_toast_17881

2015-05-27 Thread Josh Berkus
On 05/27/2015 12:50 AM, Tory M Blue wrote: > Greetings and salutations. > > I've got some weirdness. > > Current: > Postgres 9.3.4 > Slony 2.2.3 > CentOS 6.5 > > Prior running Postgres 9.1.2 w/slony 2.1.3 CentOS 6.2 > > I found that if I tried to run a vacuum full on 1 table that I recently >

Re: [PERFORM] Fastest Backup & Restore for perf testing

2015-05-27 Thread Steve Atkins
> On May 27, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Wes Vaske (wvaske) wrote: > > Hi, > > I’m running performance tests against a PostgreSQL database (9.4) with > various hardware configurations and a couple different benchmarks (TPC-C & > TPC-H). > > I’m currently using pg_dump and pg_restore to refresh my da

Re: [PERFORM] Fastest Backup & Restore for perf testing

2015-05-27 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 05/27/2015 04:24 PM, Wes Vaske (wvaske) wrote: Hi, I’m running performance tests against a PostgreSQL database (9.4) with various hardware configurations and a couple different benchmarks (TPC-C & TPC-H). I’m currently using pg_dump and pg_restore to refresh my dataset between runs but

[PERFORM] Fastest Backup & Restore for perf testing

2015-05-27 Thread Wes Vaske (wvaske)
Hi, I'm running performance tests against a PostgreSQL database (9.4) with various hardware configurations and a couple different benchmarks (TPC-C & TPC-H). I'm currently using pg_dump and pg_restore to refresh my dataset between runs but this process seems slower than it could be. Is it poss

[PERFORM] ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 1821556134 in pg_toast_17881

2015-05-27 Thread Tory M Blue
Greetings and salutations. I've got some weirdness. Current: Postgres 9.3.4 Slony 2.2.3 CentOS 6.5 Prior running Postgres 9.1.2 w/slony 2.1.3 CentOS 6.2 I found that if I tried to run a vacuum full on 1 table that I recently reindexed (out of possibly 8 tables) that I get this error: # vacuum