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

Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Andrew McMillan" <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>,"Matthew Schumacher" <matt(dot)s(at)aptalaska(dot)net>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin
Date: 2005-07-29 14:12:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
"Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> I guess we see the real culprit here.  Anyone surprised it's the WAL?

You have not proved that at all.

I haven't had time to look at Matthew's problem, but someone upthread
implied that it was doing a separate transaction for each word.  If so,
collapsing that to something more reasonable (say one xact per message)
would probably help a great deal.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dirk Lutzeb├ĄckDate: 2005-07-29 16:45:12
Subject: Performance problems on 4/8way Opteron (dualcore) HP DL585
Previous:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2005-07-29 14:06:42
Subject: Re: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group