On 6/22/06, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, OK, then the problem is more serious than I suspected.
> This means that every index on a row has to be updated on every
> transaction that modifies that row. Is that correct?

Add an index entry, yes.

Again, this is a case for update-in-place.  No need to write an extra
index entry and incur the WAL associated with it.  Imagine a table
with 3 indexes on it... I would estimate that we perform at least 3 to
6 times more overhead than any commercial database on such an update.

> There has to be a more linear way of handling this scenario.

So vacuum the table often.

It's easy to say VACUUM often... but I'd bet that vacuuming is going
to lessen the throughput in his tests even more; no matter how it's

Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor            | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to