Re: Performance large tables.

From: "Roger Hand" <RHand(at)kailea(dot)com>
To: "Benjamin Arai" <barai(at)cs(dot)ucr(dot)edu>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance large tables.
Date: 2005-12-11 03:04:06
Message-ID: DB28E9B548192448A4E8C8A3C1B1E475FC317A@sj1-exch-01.us.corp.kailea.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Benjamin Arai
wrote on Saturday, December 10, 2005 3:37 PM
> ... On the other hand there is a weekly update (This is the
> problem) that updates all of the modified records for a bunch of
> finacial data such as closes and etc. For the most part they are
> records of the type name,date,value. The update currently takes almost
> two days. The update does deletions, insertion, and updates depending
> on what has happened from the previous week.
>
> For the most part the updates are simple one liners. I currently commit
> in large batch to increase performance but it still takes a while as
> stated above. From evaluating the computers performance during an
> update, the system is thrashing both memory and disk.

I experimented with batch size and found that large batches (thousands or
tens of thousands) slowed things down in our situation, while using a
batch size of around 100 or so sped things up tremendously.
Of course, YMMV ...

-Roger

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Fuhr 2005-12-11 04:41:18 Re: Looking for information on PostgreSQL Stored Procedures
Previous Message Foster, Stephen 2005-12-11 03:02:39 Looking for information on PostgreSQL Stored Procedures