From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Clarence Gardner <clarence@silcom.com>
Cc: Oleg Lebedev <oleg.lebedev@waterford.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: slow query
Date: 25 Feb 2003 10:28:02 -0500
Message-ID: <1046186882.1015.377.camel@camel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5421.1046119835@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302240925360.25665-100000@liberty.sba2.netlojix.net>
<1046111434.1014.165.camel@camel>
<200302241045.20856.josh@agliodbs.com>
<5421.1046119835@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 15:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> You'll
> particularly get burnt by indexes that are on OIDs or sequentially
> assigned ID numbers, since the set of IDs in use just naturally tends to
> migrate higher over time. I don't think that the update rate per se has
> much to do with this, it's the insertion of new IDs and deletion of old
> ones that causes the statistical shift.
Would it be safe to say that tables with high update rates where the
updates do not change the indexed value would not suffer from index
bloat? For example updates to non-index columns or updates that
overwrite, but don't change the value of indexed columns; do these even
need to touch the index?
Robert Treat
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: xzilla@users.sourceforge.net, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com, clarence@silcom.com, oleg.lebedev@waterford.org
Subject: Re: slow query
In-Reply-To: <1046186882.1015.377.camel@camel>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox