From: | Kenneth Downs <ken(at)secdat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com> |
Cc: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: background triggers? |
Date: | 2006-05-24 11:41:26 |
Message-ID: | 44744666.7020607@secdat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>A plain INSERT of batch takes 5-10minutes on desktop postgresql (800MHz
>machine, ATA disks). When I attach trigger (*Very* simple funciton) to
>update the accounts, the INSERT take hours (2-4). But when I make just
>one single update of all accounts at the end of the batch insert, it
>takes 20-30min.
>
>
>
Why not have the INSERT go to an "inbox" table, a table whose only job
is to receive the data for future processing.
Your client code should mark all rows with a batch number as they go
in. Then when the batch is loaded, simply invoke a stored procedure to
process them. Pass the stored procedure the batch number.
IOW, have your "background trigger" be a stored procedure that is
invoked by the client, instead of trying to get the server to do it.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
ken.vcf | text/x-vcard | 186 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2006-05-24 12:22:21 | Re: challenging constraint situation - how do I make it |
Previous Message | Sim Zacks | 2006-05-24 11:36:18 | Re: background triggers? |