Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin
From: Karim Nassar <karim.nassar@acm.org>
Reply-To: karim.nassar@acm.org
To: Matthew Schumacher <matt.s@aptalaska.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <42EB3E63.6040300@aptalaska.net>
References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D0C4221@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com>
	<200507290947.03700.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<1122683983.11869.150.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<42EB3E63.6040300@aptalaska.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 03:34:00 -0700
Message-Id: <1122719640.7426.173.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 00:46 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:

> I'll do some more testing on Monday, perhaps grouping even 200 tokens at
> a time using your method will yield significant gains, but probably not
> as dramatic as it does using my loading benchmark.

In that case, some of the clauses could be simplified further since we
know that we are dealing with only one user. I don't know what that will
get us, since postgres is so damn clever.

I suspect that the aggregate functions will be more efficient when you
do this, since the temp table will be much smaller, but I am only
guessing at this point. 

If you need to support a massive initial data load, further time savings
are to be had by doing COPY instead of 126,000 inserts.

Please do keep us updated. 

Thanking all the gods and/or developers for spamassassin,
-- 
Karim Nassar <karim.nassar@acm.org>