From: | Yves Vindevogel <yves(dot)vindevogel(at)implements(dot)be> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Fwd: Updates on large tables are extremely slow |
Date: | 2005-06-13 15:49:47 |
Message-ID: | 6243ad910c02150d526b7b32d4cfef9d@implements.be |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I forgot cc
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Yves Vindevogel <yves(dot)vindevogel(at)implements(dot)be>
> Date: Mon 13 Jun 2005 17:45:19 CEST
> To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Updates on large tables are extremely slow
>
> Yes, but if I update one column, why should PG update 21 indexes ?
> There's only one index affected !
>
> On 13 Jun 2005, at 16:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Yves Vindevogel <yves(dot)vindevogel(at)implements(dot)be> writes:
>>> rvponp=3D# vacuum verbose tblPrintjobs ;
>>> INFO: vacuuming "public.tblprintjobs"
>>> [ twenty-one different indexes on one table ]
>>
>> Well, there's your problem. You think updating all those indexes is
>> free? It's *expensive*. Heed the manual's advice: avoid creating
>> indexes you are not certain you need for identifiable commonly-used
>> queries.
>>
>> (The reason delete is fast is it doesn't have to touch the indexes ...
>> the necessary work is left to be done by VACUUM.)
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
> Bien à vous,
> Kind regards,
>
> Yves Vindevogel
> Implements
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
Pasted Graphic 2.tiff | image/tiff | 5.6 KB |
Pasted Graphic 2.tiff | image/tiff | 5.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-06-13 16:02:24 | Re: Fwd: Updates on large tables are extremely slow |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-06-13 15:48:34 | Re: Index ot being used |