| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |