Re: [PATCHES] Maintaining cluster order on insert

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Gene
Тема Re: [PATCHES] Maintaining cluster order on insert
Дата
Msg-id 430d92a20608092218u7f44f8baob801aea8b136e5dd@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCHES] Maintaining cluster order on insert  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [PATCHES] Maintaining cluster order on insert  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: [PATCHES] Maintaining cluster order on insert  (stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
You are correct the main part I'm worried about is the updates, being so far from the originals. fyi I am partitioning the tables by the timestamp column,vacuum analyzing once per hour, creating one child partition per day in a cron job. Because I'm using hibernate for database abstraction (stateless sessions), I can only have one RULE since having more than one insert rule will not return the correct number of updated rows which confuses hibernate. The one rule just directs inserts to the latest child partition which seems to work well.

The reason I'm doing the clustering is I was hoping that with the "stable" non-updating partitions I could execute a CLUSTER at night (slow...) and it would compact the tables into their most efficient state for querying which always involves a date range. bad idea? In this fillfactor feature, will you be able to set it to 100% once you know that no more updates will occur? Or will doing a cluster effectively do this? Will the fill factor only apply for inserts?

"Your best bet might be to partition the table into two subtables, one
with "stable" data and one with the fresh data, and transfer rows from
one to the other once they get stable.  Storage density in the "fresh"
part would be poor, but it should be small enough you don't care."

This sounds interesting, I could create a RULE/INSERT on the unstable table, I will know during the update if it is ready to be put in the stable table. What would be an efficient way to do the transfer? Since the updates occur somewhat randomly, wouldnt the tuples in the stable table then be out of natural timestamp order?

thanks for all of your help and comments! it is greatly appreciated!
Gene Hart

On 8/9/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us > wrote:
Gene <genekhart@gmail.com> writes:
> I have a table that inserts lots of rows (million+ per day) int8 as primary
> key, and I cluster by a timestamp which is approximately the timestamp of
> the insert beforehand and is therefore in increasing order and doesn't
> change. Most of the rows are updated about 3 times over time roughly within
> the next 30 minutes.

ISTM you should hardly need to worry about clustering that --- the data
will be in timestamp order pretty naturally.

The main problem you're going to have is the update-3-times bit.  You
could keep updated rows on the same page as the original if you ran the
table at fillfactor 25% (which you'll be able to do in 8.2) ... but
while this might be sane for the leading edge of the table, you hardly
want such low storage density in the stable part.

You could reduce the fillfactor requirement if you could vacuum the
table constantly (every 10 minutes or so) but I assume the table is
large enough to make that unattractive.  (Eventually we should have
a version of vacuum that understands where the dirty stuff is, which
might make this approach tenable ... but not in 8.2.)

Your best bet might be to partition the table into two subtables, one
with "stable" data and one with the fresh data, and transfer rows from
one to the other once they get stable.  Storage density in the "fresh"
part would be poor, but it should be small enough you don't care.

                        regards, tom lane



--
Eugene Hart

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 8.2 features status
Следующее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived