From: | ender <kthangavelu(at)earthlink(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, Steve Wilmarth <swilmarth(at)eknow(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Longer and longer updates |
Date: | 2001-02-06 05:52:51 |
Message-ID: | 01020521525101.00635@linux |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-general |
if you're doing updates in a single transaction, you'll realize speed gains
by distributing the updates into multiple transactions. postgres won't have
to keep multiple copies that way.
hth
kapil
> >
> > 3) executed this statement tons of times:
> >
> > update test set data=1234 where key=1
> >
> > Here are the results -- it's pretty discouraging, I hope I'm making some
> > simple mistake, or maybe this is expected behavior for some reason?
> >
> > After this many updates ...it took this long for 1000 more updates
> > ----------------------- ------------------------------------------
> > 0 10880 ms
> > 5,000 10549 ms
> > 10,000 17380 ms
> > 15,000 20040 ms
> > 20,000 20060 ms
> > 25,000 20589 ms
> > 30,000 30749 ms
> > 35,000 30350 ms
> > 40,000 30910 ms
> > 45,000 37570 ms
> > 50,000 40379 ms
> >
> > This seems to be independent of starting and stopping my client and the
> > postmaster, running vacuum, praying, etc. I'm on RedHat6.2
> > running with the 7.1beta4 rpms.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vijayendra mohan agrawal | 2001-02-06 06:39:18 | PostgreSQL for Windows 95/98 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-06 05:45:48 | Re: [SQL] Tuple is too big ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dan Wilson | 2001-02-06 05:57:55 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Re: grant privileges to a database [URGENT] |
Previous Message | Adam Haberlach | 2001-02-06 05:50:21 | Re: Foreign Keys |