| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Date: | 2015-04-22 23:36:23 |
| Message-ID: | 55383077.3080108@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/22/15 6:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> My point is that for the life of 200M transactions, you would have the
> overhead of an additional file per table in the file system, and updates
> of that. I just don't know if the overhead over the long time period
> would be smaller than the VACUUM FREEZE. It might be fine --- I don't
> know. People seem to focus on the big activities, while many small
> activities can lead to larger slowdowns.
Ahh. This wouldn't be for the life of 200M transactions; it would be a
permanent fork, just like the VM is.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-22 23:40:07 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-04-22 23:12:42 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |