From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com> |
Cc: | kbottner(at)comcast(dot)net (Keith Bottner), pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What's faster? |
Date: | 2003-12-27 04:00:03 |
Message-ID: | 9344.1072497603@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com> writes:
>> Because Postgres requires VACUUM ANALYZE more frequently on updated tables,
>> should I break this single field out into its own table, and if so what kind
>> of a speed up can I expect to achieve. I would be appreciative of any
>> guidance offered.
> Unless that field is part of the key, I wouldn't think that a vacuum
> analyze would be needed, as the key distribution isn't changing.
The "analyze" wouldn't matter ... but the "vacuum" would. He needs to
get rid of the dead rows in a timely fashion. The wider the rows, the
more disk space is at stake.
Also, if he has more than just a primary index on the main table,
the cost of updating the secondary indexes must be considered.
A balance-only table would presumably have just one index to update.
Against all this you have to weigh the cost of doing a join to get the
balance, so it's certainly not a no-brainer choice. But I think it's
surely worth considering such a design.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2003-12-27 10:52:07 | Re: What's faster? |
Previous Message | Mike Nolan | 2003-12-27 01:06:21 | Re: What's faster? |