Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Shridhar Daithankar
Subject Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?
Date
Msg-id 200403011244.22899.shridhar@frodo.hserus.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?  ("Stephen" <private@xxxxxxx.com>)
Responses Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?
Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?
List pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 22:13, Stephen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently, I ran a huge update on an Integer column affecting 100 million
> rows in my database. What happened was my disk space increased in size and
> my IO load was very high. It appears that MVCC wants to rewrite each row
> (each row was about 5kB due to a bytea column). In addition, VACUUM needs
> to run to recover space eating up even more IO bandwidth.

I am sure people have answered the approach you have suggested so let me 
suggest a workaround for your problem.

You could run following in a transaction.

- begin
- Create another table with exact same structure
- write a procedure that reads from input table and updates the value in 
between
- drop the original table
- rename new table to old one
- commit
- analyze new table 

Except for increased disk space, this approach has all the good things 
postgresql offers. Especially using transactable DDLs it is huge benefit. You 
certainly do save on vacuum.

If the entire table is updated then you can almost certainly get things done 
faster this way.

HTH
Shridhar



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date
Next
From: Kaare Rasmussen
Date:
Subject: Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal