From: | Alexy Khrabrov <deliverable(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes |
Date: | 2008-05-02 21:30:17 |
Message-ID: | 1F7A4C3D-C8A3-44BC-A324-E9BA409BB479@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On May 2, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008, Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
>
>> I created several indices for the primary table, yes.
>
> That may be part of your problem. All of the indexes all are being
> updated along with the main data in the row each time you touch a
> record. There's some optimization there in 8.3 but it doesn't make
> index overhead go away completely. As mentioned already, the
> optimal solution to problems in this area is to adjust table
> normalization as much as feasible to limit what you're updating.
Was wondering about it, too -- intuitively I 'd like to say, "stop all
indexing" until the column is added, then say "reindex", is it
doable? Or would it take longer anyways? SInce I don't index on that
new column, I'd assume my old indices would do -- do they change
because of rows deletions/insertions, with the effective new rows
addresses?
Cheers,
Alexy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PFC | 2008-05-02 21:30:44 | Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-05-02 21:23:45 | Re: two memory-consuming postgres processes |