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

Re: autovacuum: recommended?

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
Cc: "Tobias Brox" <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>, Gábor Farkas <gabor(at)nekomancer(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?
Date: 2007-11-19 04:11:15
Message-ID: 7DA6747D-E739-4E25-9D5C-0516A6A97F1C@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Nov 16, 2007, at 7:38 AM, tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz wrote:
> The table was quite huge (say 20k of products along with detailed
> descriptions etc.) and was completely updated and about 12x each  
> day, i.e.
> it qrew to about 12x the original size (and 11/12 of the rows were  
> dead).
> This caused a serious slowdown of the application each day, as the
> database had to scan 12x more data.

FWIW, 20k rows isn't all that big, so I'm assuming that the  
descriptions make the table very wide. Unless those descriptions are  
what's being updated frequently, I suggest you put those in a  
separate table (vertical partitioning). That will make the main table  
much easier to vacuum, as well as reducing the impact of the high  
churn rate.
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Decibel!Date: 2007-11-19 04:14:09
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?
Previous:From: Decibel!Date: 2007-11-19 04:08:40
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?

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