Re: sloooow query
| От | Josh Berkus |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: sloooow query |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 200210071344.31233.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: sloooow query ("Marie G. Tuite" <marie.tuite@edisonaffiliates.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: sloooow query
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
Marie, > I ran the vacuum for selected tables. It looks fine, I think, but I amn't > always sure what I am reading in output. So much for the easy answer. The reason I wanted to see a VACUUM FULL is that the query on the "bad" database is taking a long time to return even the first row of many of its sub-parts. This is usually the result of not running VACUUM FULL after a lot of deletions. However, your problem apparently is something else. Is is possible that there is some kind of disk access problem for the bad database copy? Is there a difference in where its files are physically located? -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: