From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Campbell\, Lance" <lance(at)uiuc(dot)edu>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Suggestions on an update query |
Date: | 2007-10-27 02:04:47 |
Message-ID: | 87odel1feo.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:31:44 -0500
> "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)uiuc(dot)edu> wrote:
>
>> I forgot to include an additional parameter I am using in
>> Postgresql.conf:
>>
>
> O.k. first, just to get it out of the way (and then I will try and
> help). Please do not top post, it makes replying contextually very
> difficult.
>
>> PostgreSql version 8.2.4
>>
>> Memory = 8 Gig
>>
>> CPUs 1 dual core Zeon running at 3.0
>>
>
> O.k. first you might be grinding through your 20 checkpoint segments
> but in reality what I think is happening is you are doing foreign key
> checks against all of it and slowing things down.
If you're going to berate someone about top-posting perhaps you should attach
your own commentary to relevant bits of context :P
But the original post didn't include any foreign key constraints. I suspect
you've guessed it right though. In fact I suspect what's happening is he
doesn't have an index on the referencing column so the foreign key checks are
doing sequential scans of.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-10-27 02:31:11 | Re: Suggestions on an update query |
Previous Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2007-10-26 21:45:19 | Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris |