"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 Lutzebäck||Date: 2005-07-29 16:45:12|
|Subject: Performance problems on 4/8way Opteron (dualcore) HP DL585|
|Previous:||From: Bruno Wolff III||Date: 2005-07-29 14:06:42|
|Subject: Re: BUG #1797: Problem using Limit in a function, seqscan|