Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple COPY FROM
From: Horst Dehmer <horst.dehmer@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGTBQparVsrQkLJ2di=NHKvdXgdVxPEePMaN=s=GkRxrvFx_kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:41:53 +0100
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E6B7417-72C9-42A3-86F9-A080ADCFB2C7@gmail.com>
References: <78A65A52-C49D-4CA4-9A63-1F5F120BC7E7@gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQpavK111WhRZYk1pfRsv3ixn-VnQKD1EZbbD=Yg-y4pZ+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<9F5056DC-8089-40A5-8D41-508EADC63A09@gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQparVsrQkLJ2di=NHKvdXgdVxPEePMaN=s=GkRxrvFx_kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

The types referenced by the foreign keys are the same Numeric(20).=20
Since the complete schema (of about 300 tables) is generated, I will just t=
ry char(20) instead of numeric(20) in the next days to see if it makes any =
difference. Which I somehow doubt.=20

But first I'm following the lead of the tables/indexes iostats given by Jef=
f.


obj_item_loc references the following three tables and there should be no s=
urprises.

CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE loc
(
  loc_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,=20
...
  CONSTRAINT loc_pkey PRIMARY KEY (loc_id),
=85
)

CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE obj_item
(
  obj_item_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,=20
...
  CONSTRAINT obj_item_pkey PRIMARY KEY (obj_item_id),
=85
)

CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE rptd
(
  rptd_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL,=20
...
  CONSTRAINT rptd_pkey PRIMARY KEY (rptd_id),
=85
)


On 12.01.2013, at 23:18, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Horst Dehmer <horst.dehmer@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>> Yes, the ids is something I don't like either.
>> They carry additional semantics, which I cannot make go away.
>> How are chances char(20) is more time efficient than numeric(20)?
>> Disk space is no problem here.
>=20
> What are the other tables like then?
>=20
> The exact data types involved are at issue here, so it matters.


--=20
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance