From: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: high transaction rate |
Date: | 2016-12-07 22:23:28 |
Message-ID: | f649df54-32ed-d647-e6b3-2868189db19a@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 12/07/2016 09:58 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/7/2016 8:47 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>> Please tell me that in this case, updating 2 (big)integer columns
>> does not generate dead tuples (i.e. does not involve a insert/delete
>> pair).
>
> if the fields being updated aren't indexed, and there's free tuple
> space that has already been vacuumed in the same block, then the
> update is done via "HOT" (or is it HEAT?) within the same block... but
> with 1000s of updates per second to the same 500 rows ? odds of
> autovacuum keeping up are sketchy.. otherwise, all updates are
> insert/delete operations due to the requirements of MVCC
How does your reply change, if at all, if:
- Fields not index
- 5000 hot records per 100K records (millions of records total)
- A dozen machines writing 1 update per 10 seconds (one machine
writing every 2 mins)
- - each to a different "5000"
or (two modes of operation)
- - each to same "5000"
My guess this would be slow enough even in the second mode? Or at this
rate and style should I care?
Sorry for taking this off from OP's point
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2016-12-07 22:32:47 | Re: high transaction rate |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-12-07 21:41:49 | Re: FreeBSD 10 => 11: Dump and reload your PostgreSQL database unless you like it broken |