From: | Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, bertheau(at)bab24(dot)de |
Subject: | Re: small table occupies many relpages |
Date: | 2003-11-07 20:45:06 |
Message-ID: | 1068237906.5574.10.camel@severn2 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
В Птн, 07.11.2003, в 16:45, Tom Lane пишет:
> Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de> writes:
> > It has a unique index on virtual_domain. Every day we do <10000 queries
> > of the form
> > insert into virtual_domains values (default, 'www.something.de')
>
> So you're expecting these inserts to fail because of unique index
> violations?
Yes.
>
> > The big table size slows down sequential scans significantly. What can
> > we do to prevent growth of the table?
>
> Vacuum more often. You have to get rid of the tuples that failed the
> index check. They are already in the table when the index spits up.
Does pg_autovacuum do something wrong, that it not catches this case?
--
Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | bagley@traderonline.com | 2003-11-07 20:47:50 | revoke create table from a user |
Previous Message | Matthew Montgomery | 2003-11-07 20:44:54 | Problems Compiling eRserver |