From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: mark@mark.mielke.cc
Cc: markus@m-bass.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:05:04 -0400
Message-ID: <25546.1125443104@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050830220503.GA27740@mark.mielke.cc>
References: <20050830211356.48138.qmail@web31606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<24875.1125437357@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20050830220503.GA27740@mark.mielke.cc>
mark@mark.mielke.cc writes:
> I think he means splitting it vertically, instead of horizontally, and
> it sounds like an excellent idea, if a large enough portion of each
> record is in fact mostly fixed. Otherwise, PostgreSQL is copying data
> multiple times, only to have the data expire as part of a dead row.
Only up to a point. Fields that are wide enough to get toasted
out-of-line (multiple Kb) do not get physically copied if there's
a row update that doesn't affect them. We don't really have enough
information about his table to guess whether there's any point in
manually partitioning the columns, but my leaning would be "probably
not" --- the overhead in joining the resulting two tables would be
high enough that you'd need a heck of a big improvement to justify it.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mark@mark.mielke.cc, markus@m-bass.com
Subject: Re: When to do a vacuum for highly active table
In-Reply-To: <25546.1125443104@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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