From: | Karim Nassar <karim(dot)nassar(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Schumacher <matt(dot)s(at)aptalaska(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin |
Date: | 2005-07-30 10:34:00 |
Message-ID: | 1122719640.7426.173.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 00:46 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> I'll do some more testing on Monday, perhaps grouping even 200 tokens at
> a time using your method will yield significant gains, but probably not
> as dramatic as it does using my loading benchmark.
In that case, some of the clauses could be simplified further since we
know that we are dealing with only one user. I don't know what that will
get us, since postgres is so damn clever.
I suspect that the aggregate functions will be more efficient when you
do this, since the temp table will be much smaller, but I am only
guessing at this point.
If you need to support a massive initial data load, further time savings
are to be had by doing COPY instead of 126,000 inserts.
Please do keep us updated.
Thanking all the gods and/or developers for spamassassin,
--
Karim Nassar <karim(dot)nassar(at)acm(dot)org>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-30 18:28:53 | Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0 |
Previous Message | Matthew Schumacher | 2005-07-30 08:46:27 | Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin |