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
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 |