From: Pierre C <lists@peufeu.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Nick Matheson" <Nick.D.Matheson@noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question?
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:12:11 +0100
Message-ID: <op.vlm2ilzpeorkce@apollo13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CD1853F.2010800@noaa.gov>
References: <4CD1853F.2010800@noaa.gov>
> Is there any way using stored procedures (maybe C code that calls
> SPI directly) or some other approach to get close to the expected 35
> MB/s doing these bulk reads? Or is this the price we have to pay for
> using SQL instead of some NoSQL solution. (We actually tried Tokyo
> Cabinet and found it to perform quite well. However it does not measure
> up to Postgres in terms of replication, data interrogation, community
> support, acceptance, etc).
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...
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: lists@peufeu.com, Nick.D.Matheson@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question?
In-Reply-To: <op.vlm2ilzpeorkce@apollo13>
* 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