From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Venkatesh Babu <venkatbabukr(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Update command too slow |
Date: | 2005-02-05 16:57:00 |
Message-ID: | 23614.1107622620@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Venkatesh Babu <venkatbabukr(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> There aren't any triggers but there are 75262 update
> statements. The problem is that we have a datatype
> called as "Collection" and we are fetching the data
> rows into it, modifying the data and call
> Collection.save(). This save method generates one
> update satement per record present in it.
Well, that's going to be dog-slow in any case compared to putting the
logic on the server side, but a couple of things you could possibly
do: make sure all of this is in one transaction block (a commit per
row updated is a lot of overhead) and use a prepared statement for the
UPDATE to get you out from under the repeated parse/plan overhead.
Check the UPDATE's plan, too, and make sure it's an indexscan on the
primary key rather than anything less efficient.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2005-02-05 20:03:52 | Re: Is there a peer-to-peer server solution with PG? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-02-05 16:08:13 | pgpool simple feature request |