On 12/07/2016 03:32 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/7/2016 2:23 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
How does your reply change, if at all, if:
- Fields not index
- 5000 hot records per 100K records (millions of records total)
- A dozen machines writing 1 update per 10 seconds (one machine
writing every 2 mins)
- - each to a different "5000"
or (two modes of operation)
- - each to same "5000"
My guess this would be slow enough even in the second mode? Or at
this rate and style should I care?
Sorry for taking this off from OP's point
thats 1 update of 5000 records every 2 minutes per each of 12 client
hosts? thats still a fair amount of tuples/second and in a table
with millions of records, the vacuum will have a lot more to go through.
9.6 has some potentially significant enhancements in how autovacuum
operates with respect to incrementally freezing blocks.
if you think your update patterns can take advantage of HOT, its a
good idea to set the FILL_FACTOR of the table prior to populating it,
maybe to 50% ? this will make the initial table twice as large, but
provide freespace in every block for these in-block HOT operations.
for a table that large, you'll definitely need to crank up the
aggressiveness of autovacuum if you hope to keep up with that number
of stale tuples distributed among millions of records.
Much appreciated - endOfOffTopic :)
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
