Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE performance degradation (6.5.1)
От | Oleg Bartunov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE performance degradation (6.5.1) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.3.96.SK.990727193953.29708L-100000@ra обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:57:36 -0400 > From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE performance degradation (6.5.1) > > Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes: > > and after vacuum analyze: > > -rw------- 1 postgres users 8192 Jul 27 18:54 hits > > -rw------- 1 postgres users 1703936 Jul 27 18:54 hits_pkey > > Why hits_pkey is so big ? I have only 7 rows in the table. > > Looks like vacuum reclaims the extra space in the table itself, > but does not do so with indexes. Ugh. And do we consider this as a bug ? How do correcting of vacuum could change poor performance ? I just rebuild my table without using indices and performace increased a lot. But this is undesirable because it will slowdown my application. I'll try dbm files for logging instead of postgres. What's the shame :-) regards, Oleg > > I've thought for some time that vacuum ought to drop and rebuild > indexes instead of trying to update them. This might be another > reason for doing that... > > regards, tom lane > _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: