Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8F89FA1A6
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:57:17 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 66805-03-3
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:56:52 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEAF9F9F47
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:56:58 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBSEusAi006904;
	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:56:54 -0500 (EST)
To: "Shoaib Mir" <shoaibmir@gmail.com>
cc: "Guy Rouillier" <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com>,
	"PostgreSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS 
In-reply-to: <bf54be870612280106n1247520dtb48e10cb4bdc43e9@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <45935A49.6080602@burntmail.com>
	<bf54be870612280106n1247520dtb48e10cb4bdc43e9@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Shoaib Mir" <shoaibmir@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:06:44 +0500"
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:56:54 -0500
Message-ID: <6903.1167317814@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200612/519
X-Sequence-Number: 22575

"Shoaib Mir" <shoaibmir@gmail.com> writes:
> Here are my few recommendations that might help you:
> [ snip good advice ]

Another thing to look at is whether you are doing inserts/updates as
individual transactions, and if so see if you can "batch" them to
reduce the per-transaction overhead.

			regards, tom lane