Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

Tom,

On 7/27/05 11:19 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Matthew Schumacher <matt(dot)s(at)aptalaska(dot)net> writes:
>> After playing with various indexes and what not I simply am unable to
>> make this procedure perform any better. Perhaps someone on the list can
>> spot the bottleneck and reveal why this procedure isn't performing that
>> well or ways to make it better.
>
> There's not anything obviously wrong with that procedure --- all of the
> updates are on primary keys, so one would expect reasonably efficient
> query plans to get chosen. Perhaps it'd be worth the trouble to build
> the server with profiling enabled and get a gprof trace to see where the
> time is going.

Yes - that would be excellent. We've used oprofile recently at Mark Wong's
suggestion, which doesn't require rebuilding the source.

- Luke