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
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 |