| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Williams, Travis L, NPONS" <tlw(at)att(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: perfomance question/issues |
| Date: | 2002-10-22 00:33:18 |
| Message-ID: | 13827.1035246798@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Williams, Travis L, NPONS" <tlw(at)att(dot)com> writes:
> What I have is 4 static columns that are indexed and roughly 460 that
> are updated. Now I have only 215 rows. If I update all of the columns
> then run vacuum analyze it takes 7-10 minutes. I also have had trouble
> doing updates... I have tried doing them through perl and psql by doing
> a \i then the file name.. I have also tried using begin; and end; around
> the file.. but it still takes 1 minute+ to update one row.
That's a lot 'o columns. Resisting for the moment the temptation to
suggest that your database design needs rethinking, I wonder whether you
are running into some performance bottleneck associated with either
lots-of-columns per se, or TOAST needing to squeeze down many columns in
order to fit the rows into blocks. What datatypes are you using in this
table? Do you have any idea about the average width of the rows?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paulo Henrique Baptista de Oliveira | 2002-10-22 02:27:15 | PostgreSQL for Windows 2000 |
| Previous Message | Williams, Travis L, NPONS | 2002-10-22 00:10:46 | Re: perfomance question/issues |