Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

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 (view raw or flat)
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>


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-30 18:28:53
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0
Previous:From: Matthew SchumacherDate: 2005-07-30 08:46:27
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group