Re: Performance Problems

From: Alex Paulusberger <alexp(at)meta-bit(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance Problems
Date: 2002-08-23 14:21:22
Message-ID: 3D6644E2.2030707@meta-bit.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Tom,
thanks. I do use DELETE FROM since truncate is not an option in
trnansaction blocks
and within DBI , autocommit has to be turned off when connecting to the DB.

But maybe you are right, and the overhead not being able to truncate
tables is bigger than
not using transaction blocks.

Regards
Alex

Tom Lane wrote:

>Another thought...
>
>Alex Paulusberger <alexp(at)meta-bit(dot)com> writes:
>
>>The whole process loops 4,500 times.
>>For every loop
>>- a temp table is cleared
>>
>
>How exactly are you clearing the temp table? DELETE FROM isn't a good
>plan because you'll still have dead tuples in there. You could do a
>DELETE FROM and then VACUUM, but I'd suggest TRUNCATE instead.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sub Director Sistemas Informaticos 2002-08-23 15:00:45 PAM authentication
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-08-23 14:03:28 Re: Preserving datatypes in dblink.