Re: Performance decrease - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Radovan Antloga
Subject Re: Performance decrease
Date
Msg-id 015801c66494$ee3d25c0$1e4ba8c0@AR6
Whole thread Raw
In response to Performance decrease  ("Radovan Antloga" <radovan.antloga@siol.net>)
Responses Re: Performance decrease  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Re: Performance decrease  (Guido Neitzer <guido.neitzer@pharmaline.de>)
List pgsql-performance
>190 fields in a table seems like rather a lot ... is that actually
>representative of your intended applications?

Test table is like table I use in production
with Firebird and Oracle db. Table has a lot of smallint
and integer fields. As you can see I have Firebird for
low cost projects (small companies) and Oracle medium
or large project.

>Again, is that representative of something you'll be doing a lot in
>practice?  Most apps don't often update every row of a table, in my
>experience.

I agree with you !
I have once or twice a month update on many records (~6000) but
not so many. I did not expect PG would have problems with
updating 15800 records.

My test was on Windows XP SP2.
I have AMD 64 2.1 GHz cpu with
1GB ram.

Regards,
Radovan Antloga


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: Takes too long to fetch the data from database
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: merge>hash>loop