From: Martin S. <ma...@li...> - 2011-07-21 11:45:05
|
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 06:51:00 +0200, Eric Bollengier said: > > On 07/21/2011 04:47 AM, Dan Langille wrote: > > Moving this over to -devel after my original post on users. > > > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:40 PM, Dan Langille wrote: > > > >> On Jul 19, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > >> > >>>> Starting a file-based restore job, this led to postgresql spending a > >>>> full 15 minutes in a query. Any idea what can be done to fix this? > >>>> > >>>> http://paste.ubuntu.com/647576/ has a full explain/analyze of the > >>>> query, but so far, I haven't figured out where the problem is. Anyone > >>>> with an idea of how to tune this? > >>> > >>> create index file_filenameid on file(filenameid); > > > > Devs: any objection to making this permanent on at least the PostgreSQL catalog? > > > > There is really no downside to this. > > Yes I have an objection, it will slow down all backups to speed up very > special restore case. > > I think that the problem is more on the database tuning or on the query > itself. I have the same kind of query in Bweb and it runs instantly > (that displays all version of a file for a client) on very large catalog. > > When you add new indexes on the File table it leads to support problems > where people are complaining about backup speed... Doesn't batch insert solve those backup speed issues? __Martin |