From: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: High inserts, bulk deletes - autovacuum vs scheduled vacuum |
Date: | 2007-01-10 09:33:53 |
Message-ID: | 82vejfi5tq.fsf@mid.bfk.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
* Jeremy Haile:
> Good advice on the partitioning idea. I may have to restructure some of
> my queries, since some of them query across the whole range - but it may
> be a much more performant solution. How is the performance when
> querying across a set of partitioned tables vs. querying on a single
> table with all rows?
Locality of access decreases, of course, and depending on your data
size, you hit something like to 2 or 4 additional disk seeks per
partition for index-based accesses. Sequential scans are not
impacted.
> Does my current approach of disabling autovacuum and manually vacuuming
> once-an-hour sound like a good idea, or would I likely have better
> results by auto-vacuuming and turning row-level stats back on?
Sorry, I haven't got much experience with autovacuum, since most of
other databases are INSERT-only (or get VACUUMed automatically after
major updates).
--
Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-10 14:53:42 | Re: Horribly slow query/ sequential scan |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-10 05:55:29 | Re: Horribly slow query/ sequential scan |