From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)ohmu(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: integrate pg_upgrade analyze_new_cluster.sh into vacuumdb |
Date: | 2014-03-03 19:13:47 |
Message-ID: | 1393874027.72504.YahooMailNeo@web122304.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But I do wonder what experience people have with the 3 stage
> process, how useful is it empirically? If you can't open the
> database for general use until the 3rd phase is done, then you
> would just jump to doing that stage, rather than working through
> all 3 of them. If you can open the database and muddle through
> without statistics for a while, why not muddle through for the
> little bit longer that it would take to collect the full set
> right off the bat, rather than making intermediate passes?
It's not always a "little bit" of time. For a description of my
experience with a home-grown 3 stage process before one was built
into pg_upgrade, see this post:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1373465348.51692.YahooMailNeo@web162906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Basically, we cut our down time from hours to minutes without
serious impairment of performance.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-03-03 19:19:45 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-03 19:05:10 | Re: UNION ALL on partitioned tables won't use indices. |