On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Francisco Olarte <fola...@peoplecall.com> wrote:
> Rakesh: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Rakesh Kumar > <rakeshkumar...@outlook.com> wrote: > >>Cores do not help, postgres is single-threaded. RAM MAY help, but I > > I hope this is no longer true from 9.6 for those queries where PG can > use parallelism. > > It does, AFAIK, but for queries, not AFAIK for this kind of data > moving ops ( and I doubt it will, as presently you can easily saturate > the channels with a single core for that kind of simple ops, and > normally if you want to optimize this kind of op is better to target > concurrency ( table can be used while moving ) than pure speed . > > Francisco Olarte. > >Requiring and exclusive table lock does not imply slownes. Just try >'lock table x in exclusive mode' on an idle system. Pretty fast. Sure on an idle system, you will get a table lock right away, but OP's statements imply a large busy system. And if there are transactions occurring against that table, there is no telling how long it will take. Since we do not have enough specific info, I stand by my statement. -- *Melvin Davidson* I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
