On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 06:36:23PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 4/22/15 6:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >My point is that for the life of 200M transactions, you would have the > >overhead of an additional file per table in the file system, and updates > >of that. I just don't know if the overhead over the long time period > >would be smaller than the VACUUM FREEZE. It might be fine --- I don't > >know. People seem to focus on the big activities, while many small > >activities can lead to larger slowdowns. > > Ahh. This wouldn't be for the life of 200M transactions; it would be > a permanent fork, just like the VM is.
Right. My point is that either you do X 2M times to maintain that fork and the overhead of the file existance, or you do one VACUUM FREEZE. I am saying that 2M is a large number and adding all those X's might exceed the cost of a VACUUM FREEZE. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
