Re: Performance considerations for very heavy INSERT

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Ian Westmacott <ianw(at)intellivid(dot)com>
Cc: blblack(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance considerations for very heavy INSERT
Date: 2005-09-13 17:22:43
Message-ID: 20050913172243.GA18107@surnet.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:16:55PM -0400, Ian Westmacott wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 11:30, Brandon Black wrote:
> > I started looking closer at my options for partitioning (inheritance,
> > union all), and at Bizgres today. Bizgres partitioning appears to be
> > basically the same kind of inheritance partitioning one can do in
> > mainline PostgreSQL. Am I correct in thinking that the main
> > difference is that they've coded support for
> > "enable_constraint_exclusion=true" so that the query planner can be
> > more effective at taking advantage of the partitioning when you've
> > specified CHECK constraints on the child tables? I may go for 8.1
> > instead in that case, as the main win I'm looking for is that with
> > inheritance I'll be doing inserts into smaller tables instead of ones
> > that grow to unmanageable sizes (and that I can drop old child tables
> > instead of delete/vacuum).
>
> Perhaps I missed something in this thread, but don't forget
> you still need vacuum to reclaim XIDs.

Yes, but if you are going to drop the partition before 1 billion
transactions, you can skip vacuuming it completely.

--
Alvaro Herrera -- Valdivia, Chile Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com
"Es filósofo el que disfruta con los enigmas" (G. Coli)

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dalibor Sramek 2005-09-13 19:21:20 Re: Low performance on Windows problem
Previous Message Ian Westmacott 2005-09-13 16:16:55 Re: Performance considerations for very heavy INSERT