Re: What does this tell me?

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 01:22, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Joe,
>
> > If that's the case, can you split the work up into multiple
> > functions, and execute them all from a shell script? Or perhaps even
> > offload some of the data massaging to perl or something? (It would be
> > easier to recommend alternate approaches with more details.)
>
> I've already split it up into 11 functions, which are being managed
> through Perl with ANALYZE statements between. Breaking it down
> further would be really unmanageable.
>

If I read Tom's suggestion correctly, you should probably change these
to vacuum analyze instead of analyze.

> Not to be mean or anything (after all, I just joined pgsql-advocacy),
> I'm getting *much* worse performance on large data transformations from
> PostgreSQL 7.2.1, than I get from SQL Server 7.0 on inferior hardware
> (at least, except where SQL Server 7.0 crashes).

what?? that's blasphamy!! revoke this mans advocacy membership right
now!! ;-)

I really am determined
> to prove that it's because I've misconfigured it, and I thank all of
> you for your help in doing so.
>

FWIW I just ran into a similar situation where I was doing 6
simultaneous pg_restores of our production database on my local
workstation. Apparently this pumps a lot of data through the wal logs.
I did kick up the number of wal files, but I also ended up kicking up
the number of wal_buffers as well and that seemed to help.

Robert Treat