On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 07:16:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>I've been down several roads about how to handle data that has to change
> >>on a very frequent and rapid manner.
> >>
> >>Think about summary tables, WEB session tables, etc. As great as MVCC is
> >>for the vast majority of uses. The overhead of updates and deletes can
> >>kill a project that needs to constantly update tables.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Are you saying that MVCC has *by design* a higher overhead for updates
> > and deletes? or are you referring to the gradual loss of performance as
> > a consequence of many dead tuples?
> >
> > I am guessing you mean the latter, but best to be sure :-)
> The best phrasing would be "the accumulating overhead of deletes and
> updates."
>
> Yes.
Doesn't pg_autovacuum largely take care of this issue?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
