Frank Lanitz wrote: > Am 12.02.2012 11:48, schrieb Ofer Israeli: >> Frank Lanitz wrote: >>>> Am 07.02.2012 18:40, schrieb Ofer Israeli: >>>>>> Table 1: 46 columns 23 indexes on fields of the following >>>>>> types: INTEGER - 7 TIMESTAMP - 2 VARCHAR - 12 UUID - 2 >>>>>> >>>>>> 23 columns 12 indexes on fields of the following types: >>>>>> INTEGER - 3 TIMESTAMP - 1 VARCHAR - 6 UUID - 2 >>>> >>>> Are you regularly updating all columns? If not, maybe a good idea >>>> to split the tables so highly updated columns don't effect complete >>>> line. >> We're not always updating all of the columns, but the reason for >> consolidating all the columns into one table is for UI purposes - in >> the past, they had done benchmarks and found the JOINs to be >> extremely slow and so all data was consolidated into one table. > > Ah... I see. Maybe you can check whether all of the data are really > needed to fetch with one select but this might end up in tooo much > guessing and based on your feedback you already did this step.
This was indeed checked, but I'm not sure it was thorough enough so we're having a go at it again. In the meanwhile, the autovacuum configurations have proved to help us immensely so for now we're good (will probably be asking around soon when we hit our next bottleneck :)). Thanks for your help! -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
