Re: performance of insert/delete/update

From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
To: PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Date: 2002-11-26 18:24:39
Message-ID: 20021126132439.K12832@mail.libertyrms.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:06:47AM -0700, scott.marlowe wrote:
> So, the difference in performance was around 4% slower.
>
> I'd hardly consider that a big hit against the database.
>
> Note that in every test I've made up and run, the difference is at most 5%
> with vacuumdb -z running continuously in the background. Big text fields,
> lots of math, lots of fks, etc...

Also, it's important to remember that you may see a considerable
improvement in efficiency of some queries if you vacuum often, (it's
partly dependent on the turnover in your database -- if it never
changes, you don't need to vacuum often). So a 5% hit in regular
performance may be worth it over the long haul, if certain queries
are way cheaper to run. (That is, while you may get 4% slower
performance overall, if the really slow queries are much faster, the
fast queries running slower may well be worth it. In my case,
certainly, I think it is.)

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-11-26 18:27:10 Re: PostGres and WIN32, a plea!
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2002-11-26 18:06:47 Re: performance of insert/delete/update

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2002-11-26 18:46:27 Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2002-11-26 18:06:47 Re: performance of insert/delete/update