Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Insert only tables and vacuum performance

From: Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>
To: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Insert only tables and vacuum performance
Date: 2004-04-30 00:53:21
Message-ID: 4091A381.3020307@selectacast.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Rod Taylor wrote:
>>Or even better an offset into the datatable for the earliest deleted 
>>row, so if you have a table where you update the row shortly after 
>>insert and then never touch it vacuum can skip most of the table 
>>(inserts are done at the end of the table, right?)
> 
> 
> Inserts are done at the end of the table as a last resort.

But if most of the table is never updated then the inserts would tend to 
be at the end, right?

> But anyway,
> how do you handle a rolled back insert?
> 
It is considered like a deleted row to be vacuumed.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-04-30 03:57:49
Subject: Re: why can't 2 indexes be used at once?
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2004-04-30 00:44:16
Subject: Re: Insert only tables and vacuum performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group