From: | Peter Hunsberger <peter(dot)hunsberger(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions |
Date: | 2010-06-14 12:38:27 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinbLmOBDud5HR-9Q39qtW0hRIERh1THSPCzjDpA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>>
>> > For "inserts" I do not see the reason
>> > why
>> > it would be better to use index partitioning because AFAIK
>> > b-tree
>> > would behave exactly the same in both cases.
>>
>> no, when the index gets very big inserting random values gets
>> very slow.
>
> Do you have any empirical evidence for this being a real problem, or are you
> simply guessing? I have tables with 500m+ rows, on commodity hardware (4
> SATA disks in raid 10), and inserts to the indexes on those tables remain
> quite acceptable from a performance standpoint.
>
Can you define acceptable? IIRC the OP is looking for 20,000+ inserts / sec.
--
Peter Hunsberger
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Wilson | 2010-06-14 12:53:06 | Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions |
Previous Message | David Wilson | 2010-06-14 12:27:49 | Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions |