Re: Slow updates, poor IO
От | John Huttley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Slow updates, poor IO |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48DD6A4A.10209@mib-infotech.co.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Slow updates, poor IO (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Slow updates, poor IO
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi Andrew,
There are two problems.
The first is the that if there is a table with a index and an update is performed on a non indexed field,
the index is still re indexed. this is part of the trade-offs of MVCC.
Apparently this is documented under 'MVCC' in the manual. It should be documented under 'performance'
We should reasonably expect that the total amount of IO will go up, over a non-indexed table.
The second thing is that the disk IO throughput goes way down.
This is not an issue with MVCC, as such, except that it exposes the effect of a write to an indexed field.
--even if you don't expect it.
--john
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
There are two problems.
The first is the that if there is a table with a index and an update is performed on a non indexed field,
the index is still re indexed. this is part of the trade-offs of MVCC.
Apparently this is documented under 'MVCC' in the manual. It should be documented under 'performance'
We should reasonably expect that the total amount of IO will go up, over a non-indexed table.
The second thing is that the disk IO throughput goes way down.
This is not an issue with MVCC, as such, except that it exposes the effect of a write to an indexed field.
--even if you don't expect it.
--john
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi, On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 07:24:55AM +1200, John Huttley wrote:I've just had an interesting encounter with the slow full table update problem that is inherent with MVCCQuite apart from the other excellent observations in this thread, what makes you think this is an MVCC issue exactly? A
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: