| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Cooper <Neil(dot)Cooper(at)scigames(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Disabling transaction/outdated-tuple behaviour | 
| Date: | 2004-08-26 18:20:20 | 
| Message-ID: | 200408261120.20890.josh@agliodbs.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance | 
Neil,
> I am using a simple PostgreSQL 7.3 database in a soft-realtime
> application.
Then you're not going to like the answer I have for you, see below.
> I have a problem where an update on a record within a (fully indexed)
> table containing less than ten records needs to occur as fast as
> possible.
Have you considered dropping the indexes?  On such a small table, they won't 
be used, and they are detracting significantly from your update speed.
> Immediately after performing a vaccum, updates take upto 50 milliseconds
> to occur, however the update performance degrades over time, such that
> after a few hours of continuous updates, each update takes about half a
> second. Regular vacuuming improves the performance temporarily, but
> during the vacuum operation (which takes upto 2 minutes), performance of
> concurrent updates falls below an acceptable level (sometimes > 2
> seconds per update).
This is "normal" depending on your platform and concurrent activity.   More 
frequent vacuums would take less time each.   What is your max_fsm_pages set 
to?   Increasing this may decrease the necessity of vacuums as well as 
speeding them up.  Also, are you vacuuming the whole DB or just that table?  
2 mintues seems like a long time; I can vacuum a 100GB database in less than 
4.
> Is there a way to disable this behaviour such that an update operation
> would overwrite the current record and does not generate an outdated
> tuple each time? (My application does not need transactional support).
No.  Our ACID Transaction compliance depends on "that behaviour" (MVCC).  We 
don't offer PostgreSQL in a "non-ACID mode".   If your application truly does 
not need transactional support, you may want to consider an embedded database 
instead, such as BerkeleyDB or SQLite.    PostgreSQL has a *lot* of "baggage" 
associated with having 99.99% incorruptable transactions.
Alternately, you may also want to take a look at TelegraphCG, a derivative of 
PostgreSQL designed to handle "streaming data".  They may have already 
conquered some of your difficulties for you.  
http://telegraph.cs.berkeley.edu/
Were I you, I would start with tuning the database first through 
PostgreSQL.conf and a careful look at my hardware usage and DB maintenance.   
Then I would consider testing 8.0, which has some specific improvements 
designed to address some of the problems you are having.   Particularly, 
Jan's Background Writer and Lazy Vacuum.
-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-08-26 18:32:30 | Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX? | 
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-08-26 18:18:53 | Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX? |