Re: What's faster?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What's faster? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9344.1072497603@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What's faster? (Mike Nolan <nolan@gw.tssi.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Mike Nolan <nolan@gw.tssi.com> writes: >> Because Postgres requires VACUUM ANALYZE more frequently on updated tables, >> should I break this single field out into its own table, and if so what kind >> of a speed up can I expect to achieve. I would be appreciative of any >> guidance offered. > Unless that field is part of the key, I wouldn't think that a vacuum > analyze would be needed, as the key distribution isn't changing. The "analyze" wouldn't matter ... but the "vacuum" would. He needs to get rid of the dead rows in a timely fashion. The wider the rows, the more disk space is at stake. Also, if he has more than just a primary index on the main table, the cost of updating the secondary indexes must be considered. A balance-only table would presumably have just one index to update. Against all this you have to weigh the cost of doing a join to get the balance, so it's certainly not a no-brainer choice. But I think it's surely worth considering such a design. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: