Re: high transaction rate
От | Rob Sargent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: high transaction rate |
Дата | |
Msg-id | f649df54-32ed-d647-e6b3-2868189db19a@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: high transaction rate (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: high transaction rate
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 12/07/2016 09:58 AM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 12/7/2016 8:47 AM, Rob Sargent wrote: >> Please tell me that in this case, updating 2 (big)integer columns >> does not generate dead tuples (i.e. does not involve a insert/delete >> pair). > > if the fields being updated aren't indexed, and there's free tuple > space that has already been vacuumed in the same block, then the > update is done via "HOT" (or is it HEAT?) within the same block... but > with 1000s of updates per second to the same 500 rows ? odds of > autovacuum keeping up are sketchy.. otherwise, all updates are > insert/delete operations due to the requirements of MVCC How does your reply change, if at all, if: - Fields not index - 5000 hot records per 100K records (millions of records total) - A dozen machines writing 1 update per 10 seconds (one machine writing every 2 mins) - - each to a different "5000" or (two modes of operation) - - each to same "5000" My guess this would be slow enough even in the second mode? Or at this rate and style should I care? Sorry for taking this off from OP's point
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: