Re: Longer and longer updates

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  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 ...

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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