| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | "Mike Mascari" <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, "Matthias Urlichs" <smurf(at)noris(dot)de>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Berkeley DB... |
| Date: | 2000-05-27 03:11:58 |
| Message-ID: | NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFMEHPCFAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org]On Behalf Of Mikheev, Vadim
>
> > We might have part of the story in the recently noticed fact that
> > each insert/update query begins by doing a seqscan of pg_index.
> >
> > I have done profiles of INSERT in the past and not found any really
> > spectacular bottlenecks (but I was looking at a test table with no
> > indexes, so I failed to see the pg_index problem :-(). Last time
> > I did it, I had these top profile entries for inserting 100,000 rows
> > of 30 columns apiece:
>
> Well, I've dropped index but INSERTs still take 70 sec and
> COPY just 1sec -:(((
>
Did you run vacuum after dropping indexes ?
Because DROP INDEX doesn't update relhasindex of pg_class,
planner/executer may still look up pg_index.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-27 04:06:54 | Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-27 02:36:01 | Back online |