Michal Szymanski wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >(For the record, the reason you see nonlinear degradation is the > >accumulation of tentatively-dead versions of the row, each of which has > >to be rechecked by each later update.) > > > There is another strange thing. We have two versions of our test > environment one with production DB copy and second genereated with > minimal data set and it is odd that update presented above on copy of > production is executing 170ms but on small DB it executing 6s !!!!
How are you vacuuming the tables? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.advogato.org/person/alvherre "El conflicto es el camino real hacia la unión" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
