Re: Performance large tables. - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Roger Hand
Subject Re: Performance large tables.
Date
Msg-id DB28E9B548192448A4E8C8A3C1B1E475FC317A@sj1-exch-01.us.corp.kailea.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Performance large tables.  (Benjamin Arai <barai@cs.ucr.edu>)
List 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

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Foster, Stephen"
Date:
Subject: Looking for information on PostgreSQL Stored Procedures
Next
From: Michael Fuhr
Date:
Subject: Re: Looking for information on PostgreSQL Stored Procedures