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

Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: lars <lhofhansl(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database
Date: 2011-07-13 19:01:30
Message-ID: CAHyXU0wN0i=vDnC_VeB3pp956Gr_Xxe82MJ-7ojJnPOeu0eFHQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM, lars <lhofhansl(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 08:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin Grittner"<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>  writes:
>>>
>>> ...  Jeff does raise a good point, though -- it seems odd
>>> that WAL-logging of this pruning would need to be synchronous.
>>
>> Yeah, we need to get to the bottom of that.  If there's enough
>> shared_buffer space then it shouldn't be.
>
> This thread has gotten long, let me try to compile all the relevant
> information in one email.
>
> \d test
>            Table "lars.test"
>    Column    |     Type      | Modifiers
> --------------+---------------+-----------
>  tenant       | character(15) |
>  created_by   | character(15) |
>  created_date | date          |

small aside here: try to avoid use of character(n) type -- varchar(n)
is superior in every way, including performance (although that has
nothing to do with your WAL issues on this thread).

merlin

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-07-13 21:57:37
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-07-13 18:42:26
Subject: Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database

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