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

Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc
Cc: markus(at)m-bass(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table
Date: 2005-08-30 23:05:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc writes:
> I think he means splitting it vertically, instead of horizontally, and
> it sounds like an excellent idea, if a large enough portion of each
> record is in fact mostly fixed. Otherwise, PostgreSQL is copying data
> multiple times, only to have the data expire as part of a dead row.

Only up to a point.  Fields that are wide enough to get toasted
out-of-line (multiple Kb) do not get physically copied if there's
a row update that doesn't affect them.  We don't really have enough
information about his table to guess whether there's any point in
manually partitioning the columns, but my leaning would be "probably
not" --- the overhead in joining the resulting two tables would be
high enough that you'd need a heck of a big improvement to justify it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ralph MasonDate: 2005-08-30 23:39:17
Subject: Re: 'Real' auto vacuum?
Previous:From: RonDate: 2005-08-30 23:02:28
Subject: Re: RAID Configuration Sugestion

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group