___
De: Tom Lane
Enviado: martes, 15 de noviembre de 2016 19:35:03
Para: Gabriela Serventi
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Performance decrease after upgrade to 9.6.1
Gabriela Serventi writes:
> $ pgbench -l -c 100 -T 30 pgbench
> starting vacuum...end.
&g
Gabriela Serventi writes:
> $ pgbench -l -c 100 -T 30 pgbench
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type:
> scaling factor: 1
> query mode: simple
> number of clients: 100
> number of threads: 1
> duration: 30 s
> number of transactions actually processed: 27428
> latency average = 110.104 ms
>
On 20.04.2006, at 18:10 Uhr, Radovan Antloga wrote:
I have once or twice a month update on many records (~6000) but
not so many. I did not expect PG would have problems with
updating 15800 records.
It has no problems with that. We have a database where we often
update/insert rows with about
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 06:10:21PM +0200, Radovan Antloga wrote:
> I have once or twice a month update on many records (~6000) but
> not so many. I did not expect PG would have problems with
> updating 15800 records.
And generally speaking, it doesn't. But you do need to ensure that
you're vacuumi
190 fields in a table seems like rather a lot ... is that actually
representative of your intended applications?
Test table is like table I use in production
with Firebird and Oracle db. Table has a lot of smallint
and integer fields. As you can see I have Firebird for
low cost projects (small c
"Radovan Antloga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My test table has 15830 records with 190 fields.
190 fields in a table seems like rather a lot ... is that actually
representative of your intended applications?
> I do like this:
> update table
> set field = null
Again, is that representative of
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, John Mendenhall wrote:
> I tuned a query last week to obtain acceptable performance.
> Here is my recorded explain analyze results:
>
> LOG: duration: 826.505 ms statement: explain analyze
> [cut for brevity]
>
> I rebooted the database machine later that night.
> Now, when
