Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Scott Marlowe
Тема
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference?
Дата
Msg-id
1087486656.27839.2.camel@localhost.localdomain
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "C. Bensend" <benny@bennyvision.com>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "C. Bensend" <benny@bennyvision.com>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "C. Bensend" <benny@bennyvision.com>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "C. Bensend" <benny@bennyvision.com>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "C. Bensend" <benny@bennyvision.com>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "Olivier Hubaut" <olivier@scmbb.ulb.ac.be>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "C. Bensend" <benny@bennyvision.com>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "C. Bensend" <benny@bennyvision.com>
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? "V i s h a l Kashyap @ [Sai Hertz And Control Systems]" <sank89@sancharnet.in>
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 00:46, Olivier Hubaut wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:37:58 -0500 (CDT), C. Bensend  
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >> You might want to look into the autovacuum daemon, and / or increasing
> >> fsm settings to be large enough to hold all the spare tuples released by
> >> vacuuming.
> >
> > IIRC, the autovacuum stuff was added in 7.4, which I'm not running (yet).
> > An upgrade to 7.4.3 might be prudent for me, while the database is still
> > small.
> >
> > Benny
> >
> >
> 
> By the way, be carefull. The pg_autovacuum is not good enough for being  
> using as the only way for cleaning the database, especially if you have a  
> lot of update and delete on the same tables.

The problem here isn't pg_autovacuum, but too small of settings for
fsm.  I've run multi-day tests where autovacuum kept the size of the
database pretty much the same with 200+ updates a second going on.

В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления
От: C. Bensend
Дата:
От: C. Bensend
Дата:
FAQ