On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 21:06, John Fabiani wrote: > On Wednesday 14 September 2005 08:23, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > OK. But how many are you updating between regular vacuums? That's the > > real issue. If your regular vacuums aren't often enough, postgresql > > starts lengthening the tables instead of reusing the space in them that > > was freed by the last updates / deletes. > > > > Keep in mind, that in postgresql, all updates are really insert / delete > > pairs, as far as storage is concerned. So, updates create dead tuples > > just like deletes would. > > > > > Is my use of indexes correct? > > > > Seems good to me. > > Ok but this does seem to be a not a lot of records. Even if the user updated > 500 times a day (500 * 200) will only add 100000 records. I would not expect > that performance would suffer adding 100000 per day for at least a week. > Even if the number was double (in case I mis-read the user prior emails) > 200000 or 1000000 at the end of the week would not account for the slow down? > Or am I miss reading? I think he was saying he updated 200 at a go, but he was doing a LOT of updates each day. Not sure, I don't have the OP in my email client anymore. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
