From: | Jasen Betts <jasen(at)xnet(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Running update in chunks? |
Date: | 2013-01-27 10:04:41 |
Message-ID: | ke2u3p$oue$1@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2013-01-25, Tim Uckun <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I agree that seems like the most likely cause. Each update to the
>> row holding the hstore column requires adding new index entries for
>> all the hstore elements, and autovacuum will need to clean up the
>> old ones in the background. The best solution would be to either
>> normalize the data instead of using hstore, or move the hstore to a
>> separate table which is referenced by some sort of ID from the
>> frequently-updated table.
>
>
> That's very interesting. I can certainly split up the table, no big
> deal there. So would the index be redone even if I am not updating
> the hstore field itself?
Absolutely! see MVCC.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/mvcc-intro.html
--
⚂⚃ 100% natural
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jasen Betts | 2013-01-27 10:19:13 | Re: Yet Another Timestamp Question: Time Defaults |
Previous Message | Jasen Betts | 2013-01-27 09:25:55 | Re: Restore 1 Table from pg_dumpall? |