[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rigmor Ukuhe) writes:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-performance-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Benne
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:14 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] When to do a vacuum for highly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-performance-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Benne
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:14 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] When to do a vacuum for highly active table
We have a highly active
We have a highly active table that has virtually all
entries updated every 5 minutes. Typical size of the
table is 50,000 entries, and entries have grown fat.
We are currently vaccuming hourly, and towards the end
of the hour we are seeing degradation, when compared
to the top of the hour.
Markus Benne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have a highly active table that has virtually all
entries updated every 5 minutes. Typical size of the
table is 50,000 entries, and entries have grown fat.
We are currently vaccuming hourly, and towards the end
of the hour we are seeing degradation,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:29:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Markus Benne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have a highly active table that has virtually all
entries updated every 5 minutes. Typical size of the
table is 50,000 entries, and entries have grown fat.
...
We are thinking of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Benne) writes:
We have a highly active table that has virtually all
entries updated every 5 minutes. Typical size of the
table is 50,000 entries, and entries have grown fat.
We are currently vaccuming hourly, and towards the end
of the hour we are seeing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think he means splitting it vertically, instead of horizontally, and
it sounds like an excellent idea, if a large enough portion of each
record is in fact mostly fixed. Otherwise, PostgreSQL is copying data
multiple times, only to have the data expire as part of a
