From: Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>
To: Eyal Wilde <eyal@impactsoft.co.il>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: scale up (postgresql vs mssql)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:43:01 -0500
Message-ID: <4FE1D365.2010204@squeakycode.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMiEbcjn4UQcsk=NSNmE4rbAE2TwLBviUGYOZmXFK5mYyHVu+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMiEbcjn4UQcsk=NSNmE4rbAE2TwLBviUGYOZmXFK5mYyHVu+A@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/20/2012 1:01 AM, Eyal Wilde wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> this is an obligation from the past:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-05/msg00017.php
>
> the same test, that did ~230 results, is now doing ~700 results. that
> is, BTW even better than mssql.
>
> the ultimate solution for that problem was to NOT to do "ON COMMIT
> DELETE ROWS" for the temporary tables. instead, we just do "DELETE FROM
> temp_table1".
>
> doing "TRUNCATE temp_table1" is defiantly the worst case (~100 results
> in the same test). this is something we knew for a long time, which is
> why we did "ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS", but eventually it turned out as far
> from being the best.
>
> another minor issue is that when configuring
> temp_tablespace='other_tablespace', the sequences of the temporary
> tables remain on the 'main_tablespace'.
>
> i hope that will help making postgres even better :)
>
Did you ever try re-writing some of the temp table usage to use
subselect's/views/cte/etc?
-Andy
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: andy@squeakycode.net, eyal@impactsoft.co.il
Subject: Re: scale up (postgresql vs mssql)
In-Reply-To: <4FE1D365.2010204@squeakycode.net>
* 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