Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives?

From: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Schnabel <schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives?
Date: 2011-01-28 17:50:47
Message-ID: C9684183.1E40B%scott@richrelevance.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 1/28/11 9:28 AM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

>* Scott Marlowe (scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with whole table updates as part of an import
>> process, you just have to know to "clean up" after you're done, and
>> regular vacuum can't fix this issue, only vacuum full or reindex or
>> cluster.
>
>Just to share my experiences- I've found that creating a new table and
>inserting into it is actually faster than doing full-table updates, if
>that's an option for you.

I wonder if postgres could automatically optimize that, if it thought that
it was going to update more than X% of a table, and HOT was not going to
help, then just create a new table file for XID's = or higher than the one
making the change, and leave the old one for old XIDs, then regular VACUUM
could toss out the old one if no more transactions could see it.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mladen Gogala 2011-01-28 18:46:09 Re: FW: Queries becoming slow under heavy load
Previous Message Scott Carey 2011-01-28 17:47:55 Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives?