From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Ravi Chemudugunta <chemuduguntar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance Implications of Using Exceptions |
Date: | 2008-04-09 20:00:12 |
Message-ID: | C2580AE6-86E0-4525-963C-5A47DC9CF579@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:23 PM, Ravi Chemudugunta wrote:
>> In general I would recommend that you benchmark them using
>> as-close-to-real load as possible again as-real-as-possible data.
>
> I am running a benchmark with around 900,000 odd records (real-load on
> the live machine :o ) ... should show hopefully some good benchmarking
> results for the two methods.
Please do, and please share. I know the docs say that exception
blocks make things "significantly" more expensive, but I think that
the community also sometimes loses the forest for the tree. Setting
up a savepoint (AFAIK that's the actual expense in the exception
block) is fairly CPU-intensive, but it's not common for a database
server to be CPU-bound, even for OLTP. You're usually still waiting
on disk.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Decibel! | 2008-04-09 20:09:45 | Re: Performance with temporary table |
Previous Message | PFC | 2008-04-09 18:41:29 | Re: EXPLAIN detail |