From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance critical technical key |
Date: | 2004-08-12 13:33:45 |
Message-ID: | m3k6w44h1i.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
After a long battle with technology, geoff(at)variosoft(dot)com (Geoff Caplan), an earthling, wrote:
> b) Use a sequence. Faster for the SELECTS and UPDATES, I guess, but
> how much will the sequence slow down the INSERTS on a medium sized
> record-set?
Why, in particular, would you expect the sequence to slow down
inserts? They don't lock the table.
Note that if you're really doing a lot of INSERTs in parallel, you
might find it worthwhile to configure the sequence to cache some
number of entries so that they are pre-allocated and stored in memory
for each session (e.g. - for each connection) for quicker access. See
the documentation for "create sequence" for more details...
--
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/x.html
Think of C++ as an object-oriented assembly language.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-12 13:39:37 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] error moving table to tablespace (8.0 beta win32 ) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-08-12 13:30:11 | Re: PgSQL 8.0.0 beta1 compile problem + patch |