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 2FFBC52DEA for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 03:19:31 -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 51825-10 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:19:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BA552CB6 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 03:19:24 -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 j6S6JJXp020876; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:19:19 -0400 (EDT) To: Matthew Schumacher Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0 Bayes module. In-reply-to: <42E80C28.2040608@aptalaska.net> References: <42E80C28.2040608@aptalaska.net> Comments: In-reply-to Matthew Schumacher message dated "Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:35:20 -0800" Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:19:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20875.1122531559@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: 200507/430 X-Sequence-Number: 13671 Matthew Schumacher 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