Re: 600 million rows of data. Bad hardware or need partitioning? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Arya F
Subject Re: 600 million rows of data. Bad hardware or need partitioning?
Date
Msg-id CAFoK1ax7FnPx5vxQnMYysxLaC6BXBJRaEqpN6ZJDQQPCzBvNmA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 600 million rows of data. Bad hardware or need partitioning?  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: 600 million rows of data. Bad hardware or need partitioning?
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:21 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:

> I mentioned in February and March that you should plan to set shared_buffers
> to fit the indexes currently being updated.
>

The following command gives me

select pg_size_pretty (pg_indexes_size('test_table'));
 pg_size_pretty
----------------
 5216 MB
(1 row)


So right now, the indexes on that table are taking about 5.2 GB, if a
machine has 512 GB of RAM and SSDs, is it safe to assume I can achieve
the same update that takes 1.5 minutes in less than 5 seconds while
having 600 million rows of data without partitioning?



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Arya F
Date:
Subject: Re: 600 million rows of data. Bad hardware or need partitioning?
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: 600 million rows of data. Bad hardware or need partitioning?