| From: | "Radovan Antloga" <radovan(dot)antloga(at)siol(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance decrease |
| Date: | 2006-04-20 16:10:21 |
| Message-ID: | 015801c66494$ee3d25c0$1e4ba8c0@AR6 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
>190 fields in a table seems like rather a lot ... is that actually
>representative of your intended applications?
Test table is like table I use in production
with Firebird and Oracle db. Table has a lot of smallint
and integer fields. As you can see I have Firebird for
low cost projects (small companies) and Oracle medium
or large project.
>Again, is that representative of something you'll be doing a lot in
>practice? Most apps don't often update every row of a table, in my
>experience.
I agree with you !
I have once or twice a month update on many records (~6000) but
not so many. I did not expect PG would have problems with
updating 15800 records.
My test was on Windows XP SP2.
I have AMD 64 2.1 GHz cpu with
1GB ram.
Regards,
Radovan Antloga
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2006-04-20 16:34:32 | Re: float8 regression test failure in head |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-20 16:07:36 | Re: pg_dump -Ft failed on Windows XP |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-20 16:27:32 | Re: merge>hash>loop |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-04-20 16:05:02 | Re: Takes too long to fetch the data from database |