| From: | Flemming Frandsen <ff(at)partyticket(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance of the listen command |
| Date: | 2006-07-29 10:44:14 |
| Message-ID: | 44CB3BFE.40909@partyticket.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> Also, based on a 60ms-per-listen time I suspect you're not doing
> the listens in a transaction, so each listen is its own transaction
> that has to be committed, resulting in a disk hit. Try doing them
> all in one transaction.
I think I am doing the listens in a transaction, as I connect via DBI
with AutoCommit=>0, unless there is some bug that causes the listens to
not start a new transaction when using DBI.
I also see a problem with the first query I run in a transaction, it
takes a very long time, even if it's simply a "select 6*7", I'm guessing
this is because a new transaction is started, is there any way to
improve performance of that?
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Do you regularly vacuum the pg_listener table?
No, but this is on a system that has been running for a couple of days.
--
Regards Flemming Frandsen - http://dion.swamp.dk - YAPH
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alistair Bayley | 2006-07-29 12:23:22 | Re: What's special about 1916-10-01 02:25:20? Odd jump in internal timestamptz representation |
| Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-07-29 02:43:04 | Re: Performance of the listen command |