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

Re: scale up (postgresql vs mssql)

From: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>
To: Eyal Wilde <eyal(at)impactsoft(dot)co(dot)il>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: scale up (postgresql vs mssql)
Date: 2012-06-20 13:43:01
Message-ID: 4FE1D365.2010204@squeakycode.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 6/20/2012 1:01 AM, Eyal Wilde wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> this is an obligation from the past:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-05/msg00017.php
>
> the same test, that did ~230 results, is now doing ~700 results. that
> is, BTW even better than mssql.
>
> the ultimate solution for that problem was to NOT to do "ON COMMIT
> DELETE ROWS" for the temporary tables. instead, we just do "DELETE FROM
> temp_table1".
>
> doing "TRUNCATE temp_table1" is defiantly the worst case (~100 results
> in the same test). this is something we knew for a long time, which is
> why we did "ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS", but eventually it turned out as far
> from being the best.
>
> another minor issue is that when configuring
>   temp_tablespace='other_tablespace', the sequences of the temporary
> tables remain on the 'main_tablespace'.
>
> i hope that will help making postgres even better :)
>

Did you ever try re-writing some of the temp table usage to use 
subselect's/views/cte/etc?

-Andy


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Craig RingerDate: 2012-06-20 14:11:05
Subject: Re: index-only scan is missing the INCLUDE feature
Previous:From: Sergey KonoplevDate: 2012-06-20 13:36:20
Subject: Re: Why is a hash join being used?

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