Re: One large v. many small

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>
Cc: Curtis Faith <curtis(at)galtcapital(dot)com>, "'Josh Berkus'" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "'Noah Silverman'" <noah(at)allresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: One large v. many small
Date: 2003-02-02 10:16:00
Message-ID: 200302021016.h12AG0e19235@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-performance

Curt Sampson wrote:
> So the tradeoff there is really, can you afford the time for the CLUSTER?
> (In a system where you have a lot of maintenance time, probably. Though if
> it's a huge table, this might need an entire weekend. In a system that needs
> to be up 24/7, probably not, unless you have lots of spare I/O capacity.)
> Just out of curiousity, how does CLUSTER deal with updates to the table while
> the CLUSTER command is running?

CLUSTER locks the table, so no updates can happen during a cluster.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2003-02-02 10:16:16 Re: basic access problem on W2K
Previous Message Alan T. Miller 2003-02-02 10:08:07 Re: Visual design tools for Postgresql

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-02-02 10:39:36 Re: Postgres 7.3.1 poor insert/update/search performance
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2003-02-02 02:41:56 Re: [PERFORM] not using index for select min(...)