| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frequently updated tables |
| Date: | 2004-06-09 18:12:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20040609181230.GA19306@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 13:41:27 -0400,
pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
>
> Sigh, because vacuums take away from performance. Imagine a table that has
> to be updated on the order of a few thousand times a minute. Think about
> the drop in performance during the vacuum.
>
> On a one row table, vacuum is not so bad, but try some benchmarks on a
> table with a goodly number of rows.
But you only need to rapidly vacuum the one table that is keeping your
totals record. This isn't going to be a big hit in performance relative
to the updates that are going on. You don't need to vacuum the tables
you are doing the inserts or updates to at that same rate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-06-09 18:14:51 | Re: Frequently updated tables |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-09 17:44:49 | Re: thread safety tests |