Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDC464FD1A for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:02:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42612-03 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:02:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09AB64FD1E for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:02:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m7B72YG0043710 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:02:34 -0300 (ADT) (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m7B6quc6035763 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:52:56 -0300 (ADT) (envelope-from news) From: "Sabin Coanda" X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: long transaction Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:53:07 +0300 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <120621.32315.qm@web59503.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200808/96 X-Sequence-Number: 30977 No, I cannot use VACUUM inside the transaction, and it seems this is the problem, although autovacuum is set. However I checked the following scenario to find a solution. I call the 30000 statements without transaction. The performance it not changed. But when I add VACUUM command after each 20 statement set, I got the linear performance that I want. Unfortunatelly this is not possible inside a transaction. Do you know how could I solve my problem, keeping the 30000 statements inside a single transaction ? Sabin "Lennin Caro" wrote in message news:120621.32315.qm@web59503.mail.ac4.yahoo.com... > have you use VACUMM? > > --- On Fri, 7/18/08, Sabin Coanda wrote: > >> From: Sabin Coanda >> Subject: [PERFORM] long transaction >> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org >> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 3:34 PM >> Hi there, >> >> I have a script which includes 30000 called functions >> within a single >> transaction. >> >> At the beginning, the functions runs fast enough (about 60 >> ms each). In >> time, it begins to run slower and slower (at final about >> one per 2 seconds). >> >> I check the functions that runs slowly outside the script >> and they run >> normally (60 ms each). >> >> What is the problem ? >> >> TIA, >> Sabin >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list >> (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >