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

Re: autovacuum: recommended?

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz, "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: 2007-12-05 23:55:12
Message-ID: DE8D3343-4508-4E6A-8C1D-FD97C624A6B0@decibel.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>> 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.
>
> Uh, you do realize that the TOAST mechanism does that pretty much
> automatically?


Only if the row exceeds 2k, which for a lot of applications is huge.  
This is exactly why I wish toast limits were configurable on a per- 
table basis (I know there were changes here for 8.3, but IIRC it was  
only for toast chunk size).
-- 
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

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Decibel!Date: 2007-12-06 00:07:58
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2007-12-05 22:20:16
Subject: Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005)

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