Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A38632C70
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sat,  9 Jan 2010 21:24:48 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 03374-02
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:24:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.postnewspapers.com.au
	(202-89-185-120.static.dsl.amnet.net.au [202.89.185.120])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1399B632B82
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat,  9 Jan 2010 21:24:38 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (access [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.postnewspapers.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198761E043A;
	Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:24:33 +0800 (WST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at postnewspapers.com.au
Received: from mail.postnewspapers.com.au ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (access.postnewspapers.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024)
	with LMTP id 80TA7NKVMzYj; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:24:31 +0800 (WST)
Received: from [10.1.1.6] (124-169-133-89.dyn.iinet.net.au [124.169.133.89])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "Craig Ringer",
	Issuer "POST Certificate Authority" (verified OK))
	by mail.postnewspapers.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 191111E0439;
	Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:24:30 +0800 (WST)
Message-ID: <4B492C4A.2000403@postnewspapers.com.au>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:24:26 +0800
From: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB;
	rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nickolay <nitro@zhukcity.ru>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PG optimization question
References: <4B485B47.1000205@zhukcity.ru>
In-Reply-To: <4B485B47.1000205@zhukcity.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.24 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.359,
	BAYES_00=-2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201001/172
X-Sequence-Number: 37052

On 9/01/2010 6:32 PM, Nickolay wrote:
> Hi 2 all,
>
> Here is my typical configuration: 1(2) GB of RAM, HP ML 350(150) series
> server, SATA raid, Linux.
>
> I have 1 big table (called "archive") which contains short text messages
> with a plenty of additional service info.
> Currently this table contains more than 4M rows for a period of 4,5
> months, i.e. each row has average size of 1K.
>
> I'm going to make our application work with partitions of this table
> instead of one large table. The primary reason is that eventually we'd
> need to remove old rows and it would be pretty hard with one table
> because of blocking (and rows are being added constantly).

DELETEs shouldn't block concurrent INSERTs.

That said, dropping a partition is a lot more convenient than DELETEing 
from a big table.

--
Craig Ringer