[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@postgresq
> -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
>
[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
[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 degra
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
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 degrad
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.
Vaccu
