From: | Horst Dehmer <horst(dot)dehmer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple COPY FROM |
Date: | 2013-01-12 22:41:53 |
Message-ID: | 0E6B7417-72C9-42A3-86F9-A080ADCFB2C7@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
The types referenced by the foreign keys are the same Numeric(20).
Since the complete schema (of about 300 tables) is generated, I will just try char(20) instead of numeric(20) in the next days to see if it makes any difference. Which I somehow doubt.
But first I'm following the lead of the tables/indexes iostats given by Jeff.
obj_item_loc references the following three tables and there should be no surprises.
CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE loc
(
loc_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,
...
CONSTRAINT loc_pkey PRIMARY KEY (loc_id),
…
)
CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE obj_item
(
obj_item_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,
...
CONSTRAINT obj_item_pkey PRIMARY KEY (obj_item_id),
…
)
CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE rptd
(
rptd_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,
...
CONSTRAINT rptd_pkey PRIMARY KEY (rptd_id),
…
)
On 12.01.2013, at 23:18, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Horst Dehmer <horst(dot)dehmer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yes, the ids is something I don't like either.
>> They carry additional semantics, which I cannot make go away.
>> How are chances char(20) is more time efficient than numeric(20)?
>> Disk space is no problem here.
>
> What are the other tables like then?
>
> The exact data types involved are at issue here, so it matters.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-01-13 01:52:46 | Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple COPY FROM |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-12 22:26:51 | Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple COPY FROM |