From: | Tomas Szepe <szepe(at)pinerecords(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql 'eats' all mi data partition |
Date: | 2003-09-27 10:57:40 |
Message-ID: | 20030927105740.GB32507@louise.pinerecords.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> [mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com]
>
> Tomas Szepe wrote:
> >>[tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> >>
> >>
> >>>indexes:
> >>>stats_min_pkey primary key btree (ip, "start")
> >>>stats_min_start btree ("start")
> >>>stats_hr_pkey primary key btree (ip, "start")
> >>>stats_hr_start btree ("start")
> >>
> >>>ip is of type "inet" in all tables.
> >>>start is of type "timestamp without time zone" in all tables.
> >>
> >>Okay, so a pkey index entry will take 32 bytes counting overhead ...
> >>you've got about 10:1 bloat on the stats_min indexes and 2:1 in stats_hr.
> >>Definitely bad :-(
> >
> >
> >The only difference between the way stats_min and stats_hr are updated
> >stems from the fact that stats_min only holds records for the last 1440
> >minutes (because of its killer time granularity), whereas stats_hr
> >holds its data until we decide some of it is obsolete enough and
> >issue a "delete from" by hand.
>
> Are you sure that all indexes are needed and that a partial index could
> not help ? What about the statistics on these indexes ? Are they really
> used ?
Yup, they're all essential. :(
--
Tomas Szepe <szepe(at)pinerecords(dot)com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2003-09-27 11:20:25 | Re: Postgresql 'eats' all mi data partition |
Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2003-09-27 09:24:50 | Re: Postgresql 'eats' all mi data partition |