On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 04:56:29PM +0200, Herouth Maoz wrote: > > Unless my eyes were deceiving me, this was not the case. Sure, there have been heavy transactions during that time (e.g. the daily backup of the database, and the daily inserts into other tables, which take a long time, and a few selects which I haven't been able to find an optimal index for). But this is the query I use to see these processes (ran from a superuser): > > SELECT usename, procpid, query_start, client_addr, client_port, current_query,waiting > FROM pg_stat_activity > WHERE query_start < now() - interval '3 seconds' > AND xact_start is not null order by xact_start > > Any long transactions should be caught by it, but most of the time, all I see are vacuum workers. Well, what's your I/O on the disk? Have you tuned vacuum? Maybe you're just saturating the ability of the table to be vacuumed, or else vacuum is being told to back off? > Yes, I do delete many tuples from that table. My mode of usage is > like this: I have a small table called billing which receives new > data every night. I want to keep that table small so that those > nightly updates don't take an overly long time, because all data > (several such tables) has to be ready in the database by the next > morning. Therefore, once a week on the weekend, I move a week's > worth of data to billing__archive (the table we are discussing), and > delete a week's worth from its end. Now, the indexes on that table > would make this impossible to do within the weekend, so what I do is > drop all the indexes before I do the inserts, and then recreate > them, and then do the deletes. Without looking at the details of your database, I have to say that the above sounds to me like more work than letting the system handle this itself. I have a suspicion that what you really want to do is trickle out the changes rather than trying to do things in big batches this way. > If a vacuum takes me several days (let alone over a week!) than a > VACUUM FULL is out of the question. VACUUM FULL locks the table > completely and that table is essential to our customer care. If push > comes to shove, I think I'd rather dump that table, drop it, and > restore it over the weekend, which I believe will be faster than a > VACUUM FULL. Yes, I think so too. And I bet at the current state of affairs, that's a good bet. Whatever the situation, I suspect things are too bad off to be worth trying to get through a vacuum with. > One other important question: a tuple marked by VACUUM as reusable > (not VACUUM FULL which restores it to the operating system) - can > its space ever be used by another table, or can it only be used for > new inserts into the same table? It's managed by postgres, but given your churn rate on these tables I'd be tempted to set a fillfactor with a lot of room, and let the tables be "big" (i.e. with a lot of empty space) so that their long term storage footprint is stable. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
