This is not so bad, you where at 10h for 200GB (20GB/h),
And now at 24GB/h, it makes a 20% increase ;0)
Could you tell us what are the résults with parallel exécutions
(Before to switch to unload reload strategy)
Regards
PAscal
--
Sent from:
http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-perfor
Inserting directly into the partition didnt help, the performance are just
the same. I tried to increase the prefetch value to 1000(alter foreign
table hist_oracle options (add prefetch '1000') but still no change - 15
minutes for one partition(6GB).
On the oracle side the plan is full scan on the
main ideas are:
- inserting directly to the right partition:
perform as many inserts as pg partitions found in main_table_hist, like
INSERT INTO 14/08/2018_value1 select * from remote_oracle_hist where
day=to_date('14/08/2018','DD/MM/') and value='value1'
please check execution plan (in O
Hi,
I'll try to answer all your question so that you will have more information
about the situation :
I have one main table that is called main_table_hist. The "main_table _hist"
is partitioned by range (date column) and includes data that is considered
as "history data" . I'm trying to copy the d
Did you try
- runing multiple inserts in parallel,
- Stop wal archiving,
- Tune fetch sise ?
Regards
PAscal
--
Sent from:
http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-performance-f2050081.html
Hi,
I'm using postgresql v10.4. I have a local partitioned table (by range -
data, every day has its own table). I'm using the oracle_fdw extension to
bring data from the oracle partitioned table into my local postgresql
(insert into local select * from remote_oracle). Currently, I dont have any
in
