From: Nick Matheson <Nick.D.Matheson@noaa.gov>
To: lists@peufeu.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question?
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:42:08 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD2C640.8030303@noaa.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CD19E84.7070204@squeakycode.net>
References: <4CD1853F.2010800@noaa.gov>
<4CD19E84.7070204@squeakycode.net>
Pierre-
Reading from the tables is very fast, what bites you is that postgres
has to convert the data to wire format, send it to the client, and the
client has to decode it and convert it to a format usable by your
application. Writing a custom aggregate in C should be a lot faster
since it has direct access to the
data itself. The code path from actual table data to an aggregate is
much shorter than from table data to the client...
I think your comments really get at what our working hypothesis was, but
given that our experience is limited compared to you all here on the
mailing lists we really wanted to make sure we weren't missing any
alternatives. Also the writing of custom aggregators will likely
leverage any improvements we make to our storage throughput.
Thanks,
Nick
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: Nick.D.Matheson@noaa.gov, lists@peufeu.com
Subject: Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question?
In-Reply-To: <4CD2C640.8030303@noaa.gov>
* 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