From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
To: ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Programatically switching database
Date: 17 Nov 2003 01:17:45 -0500
Message-ID: <87brrba586.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031116051842.57962.qmail@web21404.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031116051842.57962.qmail@web21404.mail.yahoo.com>
ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com> writes:
> My concern though ... wouldn't pgSql server collapse when faced with
> transaction spawning across 100M+ records?
The number of records involved really doesn't faze Postgres at all. However
the amount of time spent in the transaction could be an issue if there is
other activity in other schemas of the same database.
As long as the transaction is running none of the deleted or old updated data
in any schema of the database can be cleaned up by vacuum as postgres thinks
the big transaction "might" need to see it sometime.
So if the rest of the database is still active the tables and indexes being
updated may grow larger than normal. If it goes on for a _really_ long time
they might need a VACUUM FULL at some point to clean them up.
--
greg
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: gsstark@mit.edu, oneway_111@yahoo.com, JanWieck@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Programatically switching database
In-Reply-To: <87brrba586.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv>
* 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