Oh, and we vacuum every day. Not sure about REINDEX, but I doubt we
have done that.
=thomas
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:40 -0400, Thomas Andrews wrote:
I have several thousand clients. Our clients do surveys, and each survey
has two tables for the client data,
responders
responses
Frequent inserts into both table.
Right now, we are seeing significant time during inserts to these two
tables.
Can you provide some concrete numbers here? Perhaps an EXPLAIN ANALYZE
for the insert, sizes of tables, stuff like that?
Some of the indices in tableA and tableB do not index on the client ID
first.
What reason do you have to think that this matters?
So, we are considering two possible solutions.
(1) Create separate responders and responses tables for each client.
(2) Make sure all indices on responders and responses start with the
client id (excepting, possibly, the primary keys for these fields) and
have all normal operation queries always include an id_client.
Right now, for example, given a responder and a survey question, we do a
query in responses by the id_responder and id_survey. This gives us a
unique record, but I'm wondering if maintaining the index on
(id_responder,id_survey) is more costly on inserts than maintaining the
index (id_client,id_responder,id_survey) given that we also have other
indices on (id_client,...).
Option (1) makes me very nervous. I don't like the idea of the same sorts
of data being stored in lots of different tables, in part for long-term
maintenance reasons. We don't really need cross-client reporting, however.
What version of PG is this? What is your vacuuming strategy? Have you
tried a REINDEX to see if that helps?
-- Mark Lewis
begin:vcard
fn:Thomas Andrews
n:Andrews;Thomas
org:Soliant Consulting
adr;dom:;; 14 N. Peoria Street 2H;Chicago;IL;60607
email;internet:tandrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:Application Engineer
tel;work:617-868-5580
tel;home:617-868-5580
tel;cell:617-599-8728
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.soliantconsulting.com/
version:2.1
end:vcard
