From: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | update == delete + insert? |
Date: | 2006-03-20 22:49:43 |
Message-ID: | 441F3187.90506@modgraph-usa.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I've seen it said here several times that "update == delete + insert". On the other hand, I've noticed that "alter table [add|drop] column ..." is remarkably fast, even for very large tables, which leads me to wonder whether each column's contents are in a file specifically for that column.
My question: Suppose I have a very "wide" set of data, say 100 columns, and one of those columns will be updated often, but the others are fairly static. I have two choices:
Design 1:
create table a (
id integer,
frequently_updated integer);
create table b(
id integer,
infrequently_updated_1 integer,
infrequently_updated_2 integer,
infrequently_updated_3 integer,
... etc.
infrequently_updated_99 integer);
Design 2:
create table c(
id integer,
frequently_updated integer,
infrequently_updated_1 integer,
infrequently_updated_2 integer,
infrequently_updated_3 integer,
... etc.
infrequently_updated_99 integer);
If "update == delete + insert" is strictly true, then "Design 2" would be poor since 99 columns would be moved around with each update. But if columns are actually stored in separate files, the Designs 1 and 2 would be essentially equivalent when it comes to vacuuming.
Thanks,
Craig
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Buttafuoco | 2006-03-20 22:56:34 | Re: update == delete + insert? |
Previous Message | Vivek Khera | 2006-03-20 22:39:36 | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & Adaptec RAID 2200S |