Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference?
От
Scott Marlowe
Тема
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference?
Дата
Msg-id
1087486656.27839.2.camel@localhost.localdomain
Ответ на
Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference? (Olivier Hubaut)
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