Re: Performance large tables.

From: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Benjamin Arai <barai(at)cs(dot)ucr(dot)edu>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance large tables.
Date: 2005-12-11 00:28:27
Message-ID: c2d9e70e0512101628g78f10996icd71a254b2f49970@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 12/10/05, Benjamin Arai <barai(at)cs(dot)ucr(dot)edu> wrote:
> To be more specific, there are two types of commands that are run on
> the system. There are application commands that do all different types
> of joins and etc but for the most part are fast enough to meet user
> expectations. 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 am currently
> using Postgresql 8.0.3.
>
> Example command "UPDATE data where name=x and date=y;".
>

Try using VACUUM or VACUUM FULL after those weekly updates...

--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Treat 2005-12-11 01:55:59 Re: Performance large tables.
Previous Message Benjamin Arai 2005-12-10 23:37:01 Re: Performance large tables.