| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Xavier Bugaud <xavier(dot)bugaud(at)parabolemaurice(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: FW: very slow updates | 
| Date: | 2002-08-01 14:23:31 | 
| Message-ID: | 1028211813.444.11.camel@camel | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Are you running vacuum after each batch of updates? You should run a
vacuum full to start and then (in order to keep the table size from
growing out of control) you should tack on a "vacuum analyze my_table"
at the end of each series of updates. (I would do this on top of making
it all one query as someone else posted)
Robert Treat
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 03:31, Xavier Bugaud wrote:
> 
> > 1. Are you using transactions?
> > 2. Do you have an index on id?
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> Thanks for answering...
> 
> 1. I tried with and without transctions : same result. In the 
> tests I make right now, I have disable transactions.
> 
> 2. yes, a unique index.
> 
> Each time I run a "VACUUM FULL", the process is very fast 
> again for 6-7 times (10-15s). After that, it takes again 
> about 2-3 minutes...
> When I only run a "VACUUM" (not FULL), it doesn't make any difference.
> 
> --
> Xavier Bugaud
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-01 14:44:23 | Re: getpid() function | 
| Previous Message | Holger Klawitter | 2002-08-01 14:06:10 | Re: Regular expressions or LIKE ? HELP needed ! |