On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Mark Thornton <mthornton(at)optrak(dot)com> wrote:
>> Every insert updates four indexes, so at least 3 of those will be in
> random order. The indexes don't fit in memory, so all those updates will
> involve reading most of the relevant b-tree pages from disk (or at least
> the leaf level). A total of 10ms of random read from disk (per inserted
> row) wouldn't surprise me ... which adds up to more than 10 days for your
> 93 million rows.
Which is the long way of saying that you will likely benefit from
partitioning that table into a number of smaller tables, especially if
queries on that table tend to access only a subset of the data that can be
defined to always fit into a smaller number of partitions than the total.
At the very least, inserts will be faster because individual indexes will
be smaller. But unless all queries can't be constrained to fit within a
subset of partitions, you'll also see improved performance on selects.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Jon Nelson||Date: 2012-07-16 17:56:12|
|Subject: Re: very very slow inserts into very large table|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-07-16 16:57:39|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation|