X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07467DAB28 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:17:26 -0400 (AST) 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 87808-07 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:17:24 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F9BDAB21 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:17:24 -0400 (AST) 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 jA6HHK9L025426; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:17:22 -0500 (EST) To: Joost Kraaijeveld Cc: Pgsql-Performance Subject: Re: Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware Raid5 / Debian?? In-reply-to: <1131283854.15471.4.camel@Panoramix> References: <1131283854.15471.4.camel@Panoramix> Comments: In-reply-to Joost Kraaijeveld message dated "Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:30:54 +0100" Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:17:20 -0500 Message-ID: <25425.1131297440@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Score: 0.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/100 X-Sequence-Number: 15357 Joost Kraaijeveld writes: > I am experiencing very long update queries and I want to know if it > reasonable to expect them to perform better. Does that table have any triggers that would fire on the update? regards, tom lane