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

Re: autovacuum: recommended?

From: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz, "Tobias Brox" <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>, Gábor Farkas <gabor(at)nekomancer(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?
Date: 2007-12-05 23:55:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>> FWIW, 20k rows isn't all that big, so I'm assuming that the
>> descriptions make the table very wide. Unless those descriptions are
>> what's being updated frequently, I suggest you put those in a
>> separate table (vertical partitioning). That will make the main table
>> much easier to vacuum, as well as reducing the impact of the high
>> churn rate.
> Uh, you do realize that the TOAST mechanism does that pretty much
> automatically?

Only if the row exceeds 2k, which for a lot of applications is huge.  
This is exactly why I wish toast limits were configurable on a per- 
table basis (I know there were changes here for 8.3, but IIRC it was  
only for toast chunk size).
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! Team #1828

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Decibel!Date: 2007-12-06 00:07:58
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2007-12-05 22:20:16
Subject: Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005)

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