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

Re: Feature proposal

From: wstrzalka <wstrzalka(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature proposal
Date: 2010-08-26 07:18:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On 26 Sie, 08:06, wstrzalka <wstrza(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 26 Aug, 01:28, pie(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)hogranch(dot)com (John R Pierce) wrote:
> >   On 08/25/10 11:47 AM, Wojciech Strzałka wrote:
> > >   The data set is 9mln rows - about 250 columns
> > Having 250 columns in a single table sets off the 'normalization' alarm
> > in my head.
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-gene(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> Yeap - but it is as it is.
> I need to migrate PG first - then start thinking about schema changes

So after turning off fsync & synchronous_commit (which I can afford as
I'm populating database from scratch)
I've stucked at 43 minutes for the mentioned table. There is no PK,
constrains, indexes, ... - nothing except for data.

The behaviour changed - I'm utilizing the core 100%, iostat shows the
write peaks about 70MB/s, the table shown by \d+ is growing all the
time as it growth before.
Is there anything I can look at?
Anyway the load to PG is much faster then dump from the old database
and the current load time is acceptable for me.

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Wappler, RobertDate: 2010-08-26 07:51:38
Subject: Re: Optimizing queries that use multiple tables and many order by columns
Previous:From: wstrzalkaDate: 2010-08-26 06:06:39
Subject: Re: Feature proposal

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