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

Re: MVCC performance issue

From: bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MVCC performance issue
Date: 2010-11-12 15:34:36
Message-ID: AANLkTi=Js1_g3AeS7Zedu_fR2yp-USYCxoCxY0hpNeYh@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> I cannot speak to your suggestion, but it sounds like you are not
> vacuuming enough and a lot of the bloat/randomization would be helped
> by making use of HOT updates in which the updates are all in the same
> page and are reclaimed almost immediately.
>
> Regards,
> Ken

IIRC, HOT only operates on non-indexed columns, so if you the tables
are heavily indexed you won't get the full benefit of HOT. I could be
wrong though.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kenneth MarshallDate: 2010-11-12 15:37:08
Subject: Re: MVCC performance issue
Previous:From: Jon NelsonDate: 2010-11-12 15:33:21
Subject: Re: postmaster consuming /lots/ of memory with hash aggregate. why?

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