Re: autovacuum: recommended? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Decibel!
Subject Re: autovacuum: recommended?
Date
Msg-id DE8D3343-4508-4E6A-8C1D-FD97C624A6B0@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autovacuum: recommended?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
>> FWIW, 20k rows isn't all that big, so I'm assuming that the
>> descriptions make the table very wide. Unless those descriptions are
>> what's being updated frequently, I suggest you put those in a
>> separate table (vertical partitioning). That will make the main table
>> much easier to vacuum, as well as reducing the impact of the high
>> churn rate.
>
> Uh, you do realize that the TOAST mechanism does that pretty much
> automatically?


Only if the row exceeds 2k, which for a lot of applications is huge.
This is exactly why I wish toast limits were configurable on a per-
table basis (I know there were changes here for 8.3, but IIRC it was
only for toast chunk size).
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828



Attachment

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Scott Marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005)
Next
From: Decibel!
Date:
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases