From: | Dave Johansen <davejohansen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Best way to handle "read only" paritions |
Date: | 2016-04-30 03:30:46 |
Message-ID: | CAAcYxUcVH1JGXJXRnsN=i0sbUbG23cSDrJyRmMFLYeU0fXfeyw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 04/29/2016 12:46 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
> > We're using a time-based partitioning scheme for our data and so
> > partitions become "read only" once the time covered by it has passed.
> > We've been CLUSTERing those partitions but here's some questions I have:
> > Should we set the fill factor of the indexes from the default of 90 to
> 100?
> > Should we do anything with xids and freeze age?
>
> If you are already spending the effort to cluster the completed
> partitions manually, you might as well also VACUUM FREEZE them manually.
> Otherwise, this will happen eventually via autovacuum, so you shouldn't
> need to worry about it unless you have particular problems with vacuum
> keeping up or finishing.
>
> Setting the index fill factor is a reasonable thought, but if you're
> never going to change the old partitions again, the new fill factor will
> never be applied. But it might still be worthwhile if you expect
> occasional changes on old partitions.
Would setting the fill factor on the indexes before the CLUSTER do anything?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Keith | 2016-05-01 03:07:25 | Re: Deadlock when inserting from multiple processes |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-04-30 02:15:00 | Re: Best way to handle "read only" paritions |