X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4011529A2 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:12:57 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47206-10 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:12:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E18529A5 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:12:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6TECkuX016615; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:12:47 -0400 (EDT) To: "Luke Lonergan" Cc: "Andrew McMillan" , "Matthew Schumacher" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin In-reply-to: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D0C4221@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com> References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D0C4221@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Luke Lonergan" message dated "Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:01:07 -0400" Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:12:46 -0400 Message-ID: <16614.1122646366@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/470 X-Sequence-Number: 13711 "Luke Lonergan" writes: > I guess we see the real culprit here. Anyone surprised it's the WAL? You have not proved that at all. I haven't had time to look at Matthew's problem, but someone upthread implied that it was doing a separate transaction for each word. If so, collapsing that to something more reasonable (say one xact per message) would probably help a great deal. regards, tom lane