Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access

From: Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>
To: Karl Wright <kwright(at)metacarta(dot)com>
Cc: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Date: 2007-06-19 15:49:58
Message-ID: cone.1182268198.419864.90929.5001@35st.simplicato.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Karl Wright writes:

> I'm not writing off autovacuum - just the concept that the large tables
> aren't the ones that are changing. Unfortunately, they *are* the most
> dynamically updated.

Would be possible for you to partition the tables?
By date or some other fashion to try to have some tables not get affected by
the updates/inserts?

I am in the process of breaking a DB.. to have tables by dates. Our
historical data never changes.

Also, what is the physical size of all this data?

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-19 15:50:23 Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-19 15:48:31 Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access