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

Re: Configuration Advice

From: Steve <cheetah(at)tanabi(dot)org>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Configuration Advice
Date: 2007-01-18 00:50:11
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0701171942190.4471@kingcheetah.tanabi.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> The thought:
>
> - Load the big chunk of data into a new table
>
> - Generate some minimal set of indices on the new table
>
> - Generate four queries that compare old to new:
>  q1 - See which tuples are unchanged from yesterday to today
>  q2  - See which tuples have been deleted from yesterday to today
>  q3  - See which tuples have been added
>  q4  - See which tuples have been modified
>
> If the "unchanged" set is extremely large, then you might see benefit
> to doing updates based on deleting the rows indicated by q2,
> inserting rows based on q3, and updating based on q4.
>
> In principle, computing and applying those 4 queries might be quicker
> than rebuilding from scratch.
>
> In principle, applying q2, then q4, then vacuuming, then q3, ought to
> be "optimal."


 	This looks like an interesting idea, and I'm going to take a look 
at how feasible it'll be to impletement.  I may be able to combine this 
with Mr. Wagner's idea to make a much more efficient system overall.  It's 
going to be a  pretty big programming task, but I've a feeling this 
summarizer thing may just need to be re-written with a smarter system 
like this to get something faster.


Thanks!

Steve

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Gauri KanekarDate: 2007-01-18 04:43:26
Subject: Version Change
Previous:From: SteveDate: 2007-01-18 00:32:34
Subject: Re: Configuration Advice

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