From: | hewei <heweiweihe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to make update rapidly? |
Date: | 2008-02-21 07:07:00 |
Message-ID: | 4279588b0802202307u28882d2eh9ee4ddc92bc89e22@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi, Scott Marlowe:
You said that " As for processing them in order versus randomly,that's a
common problem. "
do you know why? how postgres work in this scenario.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008 9:38 PM, hewei <heweiweihe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hi,Every body;
> > I have a table contains 100,000 rows, and has a primary key(int).
> > Now ,I need to execute sql command like "update .......... where
> id=*"(id
> > is primary key).
> > I expect execute 1200-1600 sqlcommands per second(1200-1600/s).
> > In test,when the id increase by degrees in sqlcommands, then I can
> reach
> > the speed(1600/s);
> > But in fact , the id in sqlcommands is out of rule, then the speed
> is
> > very slow, just 100/s.
>
> Assuming that you're updating a non-indexed field, you should really
> look at migrating to 8.3 if you haven't already. It's performance on
> such issues is reportedly much faster than 8.2.
>
> As for processing them in order versus randomly, that's a common
> problem. right sizing shared_buffers so that all of the table can fit
> in ram might help too. As would a caching RAID controller.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris | 2008-02-21 07:17:56 | Re: How to view temp tables |
Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2008-02-21 05:05:38 | Re: Error in PlPython procedure |