X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337F6528AA for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:55:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70305-10 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:55:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tht.net (vista.tht.net [216.126.88.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AD552813 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:55:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 216-154-15-201.dsl.look.ca (216-154-15-201.dsl.look.ca [216.154.15.201]) by tht.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC2476A21; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Updates on large tables are extremely slow From: Rod Taylor To: Yves Vindevogel Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <93fcaa35413e2059526ab3aa562a17dd@implements.be> References: <6243ad910c02150d526b7b32d4cfef9d@implements.be> <42ADAE10.6050204@archonet.com> <93fcaa35413e2059526ab3aa562a17dd@implements.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:53:19 -0400 Message-Id: <1118681599.723.105.camel@home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.016 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/305 X-Sequence-Number: 12942 > Ok, if all 21 are affected, I can understand the problem. > But allow me to say that this is a "functional error" It's a choice between total throughput on a high load, high connection basis (MVCC dramatically wins here), versus a single user, low load scenario (MS Access is designed for this). Believe me when I say that a lot of people have spent a lot of time explicitly making the system work that way. > On 13 Jun 2005, at 18:02, Richard Huxton wrote: > > Yves Vindevogel wrote: > I forgot cc > Begin forwarded message: > From: Yves Vindevogel > > Date: Mon 13 Jun 2005 17:45:19 CEST > To: Tom Lane > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Updates on large tables > are extremely slow > > Yes, but if I update one column, why should PG > update 21 indexes ? > There's only one index affected ! > > No - all 21 are affected. MVCC creates a new row on disk. > > -- > Richard Huxton > Archonet Ltd > > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Bien à vous, > Kind regards, > > Yves Vindevogel > Implements > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > Mail: yves.vindevogel@implements.be - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91 > > Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11) 43 55 76 > > Web: http://www.implements.be > > First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. > Then you win. > Mahatma Ghandi. > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq --