Re: dblink performance

From: "Marc Mamin" <M(dot)Mamin(at)intershop(dot)de>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Alex Bible" <Alex(dot)Bible(at)ctg(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dblink performance
Date: 2011-12-07 21:37:40
Message-ID: C4DAC901169B624F933534A26ED7DF310861B22E@JENMAIL01.ad.intershop.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> >
> > I find dblink being a nice tool as long as the data volume to
> transfer
> > remains low.
> > I've evaluated it to implement a clustered Postgres environment, but
> > gave it up due to the poor performances.
> > Still waiting for the binary transfer before the next try ;-)
>
> Binary transfer is not a super big deal in terms of performance
> actually in the general case. It's only substantially faster in a few
> cases like timestamp, geo types, and of course bytea. Lack of
> parameterization I find to be a bigger deal actually -- it's more of a
> usability headache than a performance thing.
>
> Also FYI binary dblink between databases is going to be problematic
> for any non built in type unless the type oids are synchronized across
> databases.
>
> merlin

Thanks,
... so I don't really understand where all the time get lost in the
example I posted a few weeks ago:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-09/msg00436.php

Marc Mamin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2011-12-07 21:44:26 Re: Tables creation date and time
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2011-12-07 21:17:37 Re: dblink performance