Thank you Tom. Version: I sheepishly admit it's 9.6, 10 and 11 (it's Azure Single Server, that's another story).
I am definitely looking at redoing the way we do UUIDs... but that' s not a trivial change given the volume of data we have + 24/7 workload. I was trying to understand whether there are any known workarounds for random access + index vacuums. Are my vacuum times 'normal' ? On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:01 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > peter plachta <pplac...@gmail.com> writes: > > The company I work for has a large (50+ instances, 2-4 TB each) Postgres > > install. One of the key problems we are facing in vanilla Postgres is > > vacuum behavior on high QPS (20K writes/s), random index access on UUIDs. > > Indexing on a UUID column is an antipattern, because you're pretty much > guaranteed the worst-case random access patterns for both lookups and > insert/delete/maintenance cases. Can you switch to timestamps or > the like? > > There are proposals out there for more database-friendly ways of > generating UUIDs than the traditional ones, but nobody's gotten > around to implementing that in Postgres AFAIK. > > regards, tom lane >
