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

Re: Feature proposal

From: wstrzalka <wstrzalka(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature proposal
Date: 2010-08-26 07:18:36
Message-ID: a9653f24-130a-4418-81f7-15754a140550@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On 26 Sie, 08:06, wstrzalka <wstrza(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 26 Aug, 01:28, pie(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)hogranch(dot)com (John R Pierce) wrote:
>
> >   On 08/25/10 11:47 AM, Wojciech Strzałka wrote:
>
> > >   The data set is 9mln rows - about 250 columns
>
> > Having 250 columns in a single table sets off the 'normalization' alarm
> > in my head.
>
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-gene(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
> Yeap - but it is as it is.
> I need to migrate PG first - then start thinking about schema changes


So after turning off fsync & synchronous_commit (which I can afford as
I'm populating database from scratch)
I've stucked at 43 minutes for the mentioned table. There is no PK,
constrains, indexes, ... - nothing except for data.

The behaviour changed - I'm utilizing the core 100%, iostat shows the
write peaks about 70MB/s, the table shown by \d+ is growing all the
time as it growth before.
Is there anything I can look at?
Anyway the load to PG is much faster then dump from the old database
and the current load time is acceptable for me.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Wappler, RobertDate: 2010-08-26 07:51:38
Subject: Re: Optimizing queries that use multiple tables and many order by columns
Previous:From: wstrzalkaDate: 2010-08-26 06:06:39
Subject: Re: Feature proposal

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