On 2013-01-25, Tim Uckun <timuckun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I agree that seems like the most likely cause. Each update to the >> row holding the hstore column requires adding new index entries for >> all the hstore elements, and autovacuum will need to clean up the >> old ones in the background. The best solution would be to either >> normalize the data instead of using hstore, or move the hstore to a >> separate table which is referenced by some sort of ID from the >> frequently-updated table. > > > That's very interesting. I can certainly split up the table, no big > deal there. So would the index be redone even if I am not updating > the hstore field itself? Absolutely! see MVCC. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/mvcc-intro.html -- ⚂⚃ 100% natural -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
