From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Matthew Schumacher <matt.s@aptalaska.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0 Bayes module.
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:19:19 -0400
Message-ID: <20875.1122531559@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42E80C28.2040608@aptalaska.net>
References: <42E80C28.2040608@aptalaska.net>
Matthew Schumacher <matt.s@aptalaska.net> writes:
> After playing with various indexes and what not I simply am unable to
> make this procedure perform any better. Perhaps someone on the list can
> spot the bottleneck and reveal why this procedure isn't performing that
> well or ways to make it better.
There's not anything obviously wrong with that procedure --- all of the
updates are on primary keys, so one would expect reasonably efficient
query plans to get chosen. Perhaps it'd be worth the trouble to build
the server with profiling enabled and get a gprof trace to see where the
time is going.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, matt.s@aptalaska.net
Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0 Bayes module.
In-Reply-To: <20875.1122531559@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox