| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Clarence Gardner <clarence(at)silcom(dot)com>, Oleg Lebedev <oleg(dot)lebedev(at)waterford(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: slow query |
| Date: | 2003-02-25 16:07:15 |
| Message-ID: | 10854.1046189235@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> Would it be safe to say that tables with high update rates where the
> updates do not change the indexed value would not suffer from index
> bloat?
I would expect not. If you vacuum often enough to keep the main table
size under control, the index should stay under control too.
> For example updates to non-index columns or updates that
> overwrite, but don't change the value of indexed columns; do these even
> need to touch the index?
Yes, they do. Think MVCC.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Childs | 2003-02-25 16:36:11 | Re: slow query |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-02-25 15:56:14 | Re: Superfluous merge/sort |