From: | Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Date: | 2005-01-22 13:18:27 |
Message-ID: | 758d5e7f0501220518477cedfa@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:13:00 +0900 (JST), Tatsuo Ishii
<t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> IMO the bottle neck is not WAL but table/index bloat. Lots of updates
> on large tables will produce lots of dead tuples. Problem is, There'
> is no effective way to reuse these dead tuples since VACUUM on huge
> tables takes longer time. 8.0 adds new vacuum delay
> paramters. Unfortunately this does not help. It just make the
> execution time of VACUUM longer, that means more and more dead tuples
> are being made while updating.
>
> Probably VACUUM works well for small to medium size tables, but not
> for huge ones. I'm considering about to implement "on the spot
> salvaging dead tuples".
Quick thought -- would it be to possible to implement a 'partial VACUUM'
per analogiam to partial indexes?
It would be then posiible to do:
VACUUM footable WHERE footime < current_date - 60;
after a statement to DELETE all/some rows older than 60 days.
The VACUUM would check visibility of columns which are mentioned
in an index (in this case: footable_footime_index ;)).
Of course it is not a great solution, but could be great for doing
housecleaning after large update/delete in a known range.
...and should be relatively simple to implement, I guess
(maybe without 'ANALYZE' part).
Regards,
Dawid
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-01-22 17:20:53 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-01-22 04:22:13 | Re: inheritance performance |