| From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inserts in 'big' table slowing down the database |
| Date: | 2012-10-02 15:09:10 |
| Message-ID: | 506B0396.4030805@optionshouse.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10/01/2012 07:15 PM, Stefan Keller wrote:
> Any ideas? Partitioning?
Yes. Make sure you have a good column to partition on. Tables this large
are just bad performers in general, and heaven forbid you ever have to
perform maintenance on them. We had a table that size, and simply
creating an index could take upwards of two hours.
If you can't archive any of the table contents, partitioning may be your
only solution. If you have an EDB 9.1, you'll also have less problems
with the legacy issues people had with planning queries using partitions.
Don't go crazy, though. I try to keep it under a couple dozen partitions
per table, or under 100M records per partition.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-10-02 15:14:09 | Re: hardware advice - opinions about HP? |
| Previous Message | Franklin, Dan (FEN) | 2012-10-02 14:51:46 | Re: hardware advice - opinions about HP? |