X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595D011F6D19 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:10:31 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: -2.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.466 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.2] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10k-QPFSJ0YZ for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:10:21 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mta1.siol.net (mta1.siol.net [193.189.160.88]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A448A11F6709 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:10:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from edge2.siol.net ([10.10.10.211]) by mta1.siol.net with ESMTP id <20060420161019.TCJB21004.mta1.siol.net@edge2.siol.net>; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:10:19 +0200 Received: from AR6 ([193.77.151.117]) by edge2.siol.net with SMTP id <20060420161019.ZNPA7870.edge2.siol.net@AR6>; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:10:19 +0200 Message-ID: <015801c66494$ee3d25c0$1e4ba8c0@AR6> From: "Radovan Antloga" To: "Tom Lane" Cc: References: <011b01c6648e$067ee170$1e4ba8c0@AR6> <18973.1145547701@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: Performance decrease Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:10:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Archive-Number: 200604/459 X-Sequence-Number: 18543 >190 fields in a table seems like rather a lot ... is that actually >representative of your intended applications? Test table is like table I use in production with Firebird and Oracle db. Table has a lot of smallint and integer fields. As you can see I have Firebird for low cost projects (small companies) and Oracle medium or large project. >Again, is that representative of something you'll be doing a lot in >practice? Most apps don't often update every row of a table, in my >experience. I agree with you ! I have once or twice a month update on many records (~6000) but not so many. I did not expect PG would have problems with updating 15800 records. My test was on Windows XP SP2. I have AMD 64 2.1 GHz cpu with 1GB ram. Regards, Radovan Antloga