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
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 an
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the feedback. I've moved the temp tables to internal function,
increased max_locks_per_transaction and dropped the tables instead of
deleting them.
The performance drop is till there, but it is much, much less then the
previous case. Previously the whole execution took 04:36:14
Seref Arikan 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 wo
Greetings,
I have a function that loops over a set of ids, calls a function inside the
loop using the current id as the parameter, and adds the result of the
function call to a temp table.
When the loop terminates, the temp table has all the rows from the function
call(s) and it is returned.
I've
