| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Shane Ambler" <pgsql(at)sheeky(dot)biz>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Replication Syatem |
| Date: | 2008-04-30 07:25:30 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0804300025j10567a82x5845ab8bc3d4f2a2@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Gauri Kanekar
<meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> fillfactor is set to 80 as you suggested.
> delta* fields r updated and these fields are no where related to any of the
> index fields.
>
That's weird. With that fillfactor, you should have a very high
percentage of HOT update ratio. It could be a very special case that
we might be looking at. I think a self contained test case or a very
detail explanation of the exact usage is what we need to explain this
behavior. You may also try dropping non-critical indexes and test
again.
Btw, I haven't been able to reproduce this at my end. With the given
indexes and kind of updates, I get very high percentage of HOT
updates.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-04-30 10:26:18 | Re: Replication Syatem |
| Previous Message | Gauri Kanekar | 2008-04-30 06:49:04 | Re: Replication Syatem |