From: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Cc: Mark Makarowsky <bedrockconstruction@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Update table performance
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:42:28 -0500
Message-ID: <20070807214227.GR25704@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10708071236v4c79413fpd90a4077ad93eac9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <435532.80672.qm@web32210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<46B8749F.8010002@archonet.com>
<20070807175913.GH25704@nasby.net>
<dcc563d10708071236v4c79413fpd90a4077ad93eac9@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 02:36:18PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 02:33:19PM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > > Mark Makarowsky wrote:
> > > >I have a table with 4,889,820 records in it. The
> > > >table also has 47 fields. I'm having problems with
> > > >update performance. Just as a test, I issued the
> > > >following update:
> > > >
> > > >update valley set test='this is a test'
> > > >
> > > >This took 905641 ms. Isn't that kind of slow?
> > >
> > > The limiting factor here will be how fast you can write to your disk.
> >
> > Well, very possibly how fast you can read, too. Using your assumption of
> > 1k per row, 5M rows means 5G of data, which might well not fit in
> > memory. And if the entire table's been updated just once before, even
> > with vacuuming you're now at 10G of data.
>
> Where one might have to update just one column of a wide table often,
> it's often a good idea to move that column into its own dependent
> table.
Yeah, I've used "vertical partitioning" very successfully in the past,
though I've never done it for just a single field. I'll typically leave
the few most common fields in the "main" table and pull everything else
into a second table.
> Or just don't update one column of every row in table...
Yeah, that too. :) Though sometimes you can't avoid it.
I should mention that if you can handle splitting the update into
multiple transactions, that will help a lot since it means you won't be
doubling the size of the table.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
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: decibel@decibel.org, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, dev@archonet.com, bedrockconstruction@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Update table performance
In-Reply-To: <20070807214227.GR25704@nasby.net>
* 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