| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nickolay <nitro(at)zhukcity(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG optimization question |
| Date: | 2010-01-10 01:24:26 |
| Message-ID: | 4B492C4A.2000403@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 9/01/2010 6:32 PM, Nickolay wrote:
> Hi 2 all,
>
> Here is my typical configuration: 1(2) GB of RAM, HP ML 350(150) series
> server, SATA raid, Linux.
>
> I have 1 big table (called "archive") which contains short text messages
> with a plenty of additional service info.
> Currently this table contains more than 4M rows for a period of 4,5
> months, i.e. each row has average size of 1K.
>
> I'm going to make our application work with partitions of this table
> instead of one large table. The primary reason is that eventually we'd
> need to remove old rows and it would be pretty hard with one table
> because of blocking (and rows are being added constantly).
DELETEs shouldn't block concurrent INSERTs.
That said, dropping a partition is a lot more convenient than DELETEing
from a big table.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre Frédéric Caillaud | 2010-01-10 10:52:01 | Re: PG optimization question |
| Previous Message | Ludwik Dylag | 2010-01-09 18:58:22 | Re: PG optimization question |