| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Issue |
| Date: | 2008-07-02 16:35:31 |
| Message-ID: | 12784.1215016531@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Better HOT performance means.... 1st stat showed most of the updated tuples
> getting hot.
> But the 2nd stat showed that most of the updated tuples are NOT getting hot.
Well, as was noted upthread, you'd want to reduce the table fillfactor
(not index fillfactor) below 100 to improve the odds of being able to
do HOT updates. But I wonder whether your application behavior changed.
Are you updating the rows in a way that'd make them wider?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Leví Teodoro da Silva | 2008-07-02 18:31:10 | [QUESTION]Concurrent Access |
| Previous Message | Gauri Kanekar | 2008-07-02 14:48:11 | Re: Hot Issue |