Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

From: "Y Sidhu" <ysidhu(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Thomas Andrews" <tandrews(at)soliantconsulting(dot)com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Mark Lewis" <mark(dot)lewis(at)mir3(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date: 2007-06-04 20:08:38
Message-ID: b09064f30706041308o40faf0ccl5a8a48a1f36eedbb@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 6/4/07, Thomas Andrews <tandrews(at)soliantconsulting(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 6/4/07 3:43 PM, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Thomas Andrews" <tandrews(at)soliantconsulting(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >> I guess my real question is, does it ever make sense to create
> thousands of
> >> tables like this?
> >
> > Sometimes. But usually it's not a good idea.
> >
> > What you're proposing is basically partitioning, though you may not
> actually
> > need to put all the partitions together for your purposes.
> Partitioning's main
> > benefit is in the management of the data. You can drop and load
> partitions in
> > chunks rather than have to perform large operations on millions of
> records.
> >
> > Postgres doesn't really get any faster by breaking the tables up like
> that. In
> > fact it probably gets slower as it has to look up which of the thousands
> of
> > tables you want to work with.
> >
> > How often do you update or delete records and how many do you update or
> > delete? Once per day is a very low frequency for vacuuming a busy table,
> you
> > may be suffering from table bloat. But if you never delete or update
> records
> > then that's irrelevant.
>
> It looks like the most inserts that have occurred in a day is about 2000.
> The responders table has 1.3 million records, the responses table has 50
> million records. Most of the inserts are in the responses table.
>
> >
> > Does reindexing or clustering the table make a marked difference?
> >
>
> Clustering sounds like it might be a really good solution. How long does
> a
> cluster command usually take on a table with 50,000,000 records? Is it
> something that can be run daily/weekly?
>
> I'd rather not post the schema because it's not mine - I'm a
> consultant. I
> can tell you our vacuum every night is taking 2 hours and that disk IO is
> the real killer - the CPU rarely gets higher than 20% or so.
>
> =thomas
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

What OS are you running on?

--
Yudhvir Singh Sidhu
408 375 3134 cell

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Andrews 2007-06-04 20:14:14 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Previous Message Douglas J Hunley 2007-06-04 20:01:08 Re: upgraded to pgsql 8.2.4, getting worse performance then 7.4.x