Just for the record, I've increased the data volume X10 and observed only quite small performance drop: average time per inner function call increased from 12.6 ms to 13.3 ms.
Regards Seref On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Seref Arikan < serefari...@kurumsalteknoloji.com> wrote: > Thanks a lot for the hint Tom! I've replaced deletes with TRUNCATE and it > gave a performance of 50.950 sec which is twice as fast as the drop temp > table method, with the added benefit of not having to raise the > max_locks_per_transaction. > > I also think I can't see the performance decrease pattern anymore, or the > operation is completing before that happens, will generate more data and > try again. > > Regards > Seref > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Seref Arikan <serefari...@kurumsalteknoloji.com> writes: >> > What may be building up here? I suspect deleting all rows from the temp >> > tables is not really deleting them since this is all happening in a >> > transaction, but it is my uneducated guess only. >> >> I suspect you suspect correctly. Autovacuum does not touch temp tables, >> so it won't help you deal with deleted tuples. Given the usage pattern >> you're describing, I think that using a TRUNCATE rather than >> delete-all-the-rows would help ... but if you're already doing that, >> we need more info. >> >> regards, tom lane >> > >
