From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | ingham(at)erols(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL and mySQL database size question |
Date: | 2001-04-30 19:17:31 |
Message-ID: | 19044.988658251@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Fred Ingham" <ingham(at)erols(dot)com> writes:
> After dropping and recreating the indexes I have (in KB):
Ah, that's more like it.
> So, it appears that I am running into the pathological case.
Actually, a simpler explanation would be if you'd done a bunch of
updates and/or deletes at some point. VACUUM currently never shrinks
indexes, so the excess index space might just represent the peak size
of your tables. (Yes, improving that is on the to-do list.)
> In short, they are all needed for acceptable performance querying and
> retrieving values from the database.
You've got common queries that do selects with WHERE clauses referencing
each one of these columns? Possible, certainly, but seems a bit odd...
> With respect to mySQL, I did verify that mySQL did in fact have all of the
> indexes I created and that they were saved in a single file (the *.MYI).
Hm. Anyone know how mySQL represents indexes? That still seems awfully
small.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stuart | 2001-04-30 19:18:12 | datetime arithmatic |
Previous Message | John Coers | 2001-04-30 19:12:22 | Re: Performance with Large Volumes of Data |