Re: performance problems on updates on large tables with indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance problems on updates on large tables with indexes
Date: 2002-02-27 21:41:55
Message-ID: 8483.1014846115@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de> writes:
> It has a unique index on id, non-unique indexes on all othe columns,
> and contains approx. 350000 rows.

Do you actually *need* an index on every single column? How many of
those columns are you actually going to use for searches on a frequent
basis?

Creating an index is a straightforward tradeoff of more time spent for
updates to save on searches. I suspect you have made a bad tradeoff.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-02-27 23:04:09 Re: missing foreign key fails silently using COPY
Previous Message Jean-Paul ARGUDO 2002-02-27 16:36:01 Re: function tree_level(varchar) (from OpenACS) no longer work under 7.2