On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pierre C <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I have clustered that table, its still unbelievably slow. >> >> Did you actually delete the old entries before clustering it? if it's >> still got 4G of old sessions or whatever in it, clustering ain't gonna >> help. > > Also, IMHO it is a lot better to store sessions in something like memcached, > rather than imposing this rather large load on the main database... > > PS : if your site has been down for 6 hours, you can TRUNCATE your sessions > table... Agreed. When I started where I am sessions were on pg and falling over all the time. Because I couldn't change it at the time, I was forced to make autovac MUCH more aggressive. I didn't have to crank up fsm a lot really but did a bit. Then just ran a vacuum full / reindex across the sessions table and everything was fine after that. But we could handle 100x time the load for sessions with memcached I bet. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
