From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MVCC performance issue |
Date: | 2010-11-12 15:37:08 |
Message-ID: | 20101112153708.GL14016@aart.is.rice.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:34:36AM -0800, bricklen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> wrote:
> >
> > I cannot speak to your suggestion, but it sounds like you are not
> > vacuuming enough and a lot of the bloat/randomization would be helped
> > by making use of HOT updates in which the updates are all in the same
> > page and are reclaimed almost immediately.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ken
>
> IIRC, HOT only operates on non-indexed columns, so if you the tables
> are heavily indexed you won't get the full benefit of HOT. I could be
> wrong though.
>
That is true, but if they are truly having as big a bloat problem
as the message indicated, it would be worth designing the schema
to leverage HOT for the very frequent updates.
Cheers,
Ken
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2010-11-12 15:53:35 | Re: MVCC performance issue |
Previous Message | bricklen | 2010-11-12 15:34:36 | Re: MVCC performance issue |