Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-08 Thread Doug McNaught
Venkatesh Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, > > Thanks for providing info... I tried disabling > autocommit, as suggested by Mr. Greg Stark, I tried > issuing the command "set autocommit to off", but got > the following error message: > > ERROR: SET AUTOCOMMIT TO OFF is no longer supporte

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-08 Thread Venkatesh Babu
Hi, The where clause is used in update statements and the column present in the where clause is indexed... but still updates are slow. Thanks, Venkatesh --- guegue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you mention you use one update statement by record, > this may be to > basic but anyway, it just happ

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-08 Thread Venkatesh Babu
Hello, Thanks for providing info... I tried disabling autocommit, as suggested by Mr. Greg Stark, I tried issuing the command "set autocommit to off", but got the following error message: ERROR: SET AUTOCOMMIT TO OFF is no longer supported Also, I can't implement the suggestions of Mr. Christop

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-08 Thread guegue
you mention you use one update statement by record, this may be to basic but anyway, it just happened to me... do you use the WHERE clause in your UPDATE statement, and if so is the column you use to filter indexed? javier On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 03:14:52 -0800 (PST), Venkatesh Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-08 Thread guegue
How are you updating this tables? Do you use UPDATE WHERE On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Venkatesh Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > We have a table cm_quotastates which has exactly > 4624564 rows and 25 columns and 9 indexes... Out of > these, our code retrieves 7

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-06 Thread Christopher Browne
Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Venkatesh Babu) was seen spray-painting on a wall: > There aren't any triggers but there are 75262 update > statements. The problem is that we have a datatype > called as "Collection" and we are fetching the data > rows into it, modifying the data and call > Collection.save

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-05 Thread Tom Lane
Venkatesh Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There aren't any triggers but there are 75262 update > statements. The problem is that we have a datatype > called as "Collection" and we are fetching the data > rows into it, modifying the data and call > Collection.save(). This save method generates on

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-05 Thread Greg Stark
Venkatesh Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > There aren't any triggers but there are 75262 update > statements. The problem is that we have a datatype > called as "Collection" and we are fetching the data > rows into it, modifying the data and call > Collection.save(). This save method ge

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-05 Thread Venkatesh Babu
Hi, There aren't any foreign keys and we are currently using Postgres version 7.4... --- Venkatesh Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > There aren't any triggers but there are 75262 update > statements. The problem is that we have a datatype > called as "Collection" and we are fetching the

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-05 Thread Venkatesh Babu
Hi, There aren't any triggers but there are 75262 update statements. The problem is that we have a datatype called as "Collection" and we are fetching the data rows into it, modifying the data and call Collection.save(). This save method generates one update satement per record present in it. Tha

Re: [GENERAL] Update command too slow

2005-02-04 Thread Tom Lane
Venkatesh Babu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We have a table cm_quotastates which has exactly > 4624564 rows and 25 columns and 9 indexes... Out of > these, our code retrieves 75262 rows and modifies just > one column in each row... but updating these to > database is taking some significant time (