Search Postgresql Archives

Re: Partial indexes instead of partitions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, David Wilson <david.t.wilson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Leonardo F <m_lists@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > For "inserts" I do not see the reason
>> > why
>> > it would be better to use index partitioning because AFAIK
>> > b-tree
>> > would behave exactly the same in both cases.
>>
>> no, when the index gets very big inserting random values gets
>> very slow.
>
> Do you have any empirical evidence for this being a real problem, or are you
> simply guessing? I have tables with 500m+ rows, on commodity hardware (4
> SATA disks in raid 10), and inserts to the indexes on those tables remain
> quite acceptable from a performance standpoint.
>

Can you define acceptable?  IIRC the OP is looking for 20,000+ inserts / sec.


-- 
Peter Hunsberger

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux