From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Schnabel <schnabelr@missouri.edu>
Cc: david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives?
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:28:10 -0500
Message-ID: <20110128172810.GE30352@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=3j3PW=Lkrwu2XiWdS4jCy0TcLLO4L2h3=9U0G@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D41F92F.9030006@missouri.edu>
<alpine.DEB.2.00.1101271512390.17579@asgard.lang.hm>
<4D420D61.3000109@missouri.edu>
<20110128131410.GC30352@tamriel.snowman.net>
<4D42F127.9050307@missouri.edu>
<AANLkTi=3j3PW=Lkrwu2XiWdS4jCy0TcLLO4L2h3=9U0G@mail.gmail.com>
* Scott Marlowe (scott.marlowe@gmail.com) wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with whole table updates as part of an import
> process, you just have to know to "clean up" after you're done, and
> regular vacuum can't fix this issue, only vacuum full or reindex or
> cluster.
Just to share my experiences- I've found that creating a new table and
inserting into it is actually faster than doing full-table updates, if
that's an option for you.
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 197B) download
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: sfrost@snowman.net, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, schnabelr@missouri.edu, david@lang.hm
Subject: Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives?
In-Reply-To: <20110128172810.GE30352@tamriel.snowman.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