On 23/05/11 12:09, Aren Cambre wrote:
> Also, thanks for the advice on batching my queries. I am now using a
> very efficient bulk data read and write methods for Postgres.
>
> My program bulk reads 100,000 rows, processes those rows (during which
> it does a few SELECTs), and then writes 100,000
Also, thanks for the advice on batching my queries. I am now using a very
efficient bulk data read and write methods for Postgres.
My program bulk reads 100,000 rows, processes those rows (during which it
does a few SELECTs), and then writes 100,000 rows at a time.
It cycles through this until it
Dne 19.5.2011 23:13, Strange, John W napsal(a):
> Am I reading this right in that the sort is taking almost 8 seconds?
You're probably reading it wrong. The sort itself takes about 1 ms (just
subtract the numbers in "actual="). If you include all the overhead it
takes about 2.3 seconds (the hash j
Dave,
how often do you want to repeat that posting? What about instead
replying to the answers you got so far?
Cheers
robert
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
> I am using Postgres 8.3 and I have an issue very closely related to the one
> described here:
> http://archives
Just wanted to again say thanks for everyone's help.
The main problem was that my program was running in serial, not parallel,
even though I thought I used a textbook example of PLINQ. Your assistance
helped me get to the point where I could conclusively determine everything
was running in serial.
