On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Richard Huxton <d...@archonet.com> wrote: > On 21/01/13 20:09, Tim Uckun wrote: >> >> Just to close this up and give some guidance to future googlers... > > Careful, future googlers. > >> Conclusion. Updates on postgres are slow > > Nope. > > >> (given the default >> postgresql.conf). I presume this is due to MVCC or the WAL or >> something and there are probably some things I can do to tweak the >> conf file to make them go faster but out of the box running an update >> on a table with lots of rows is going to cost you a lot. > > Unlikely. Do you really think that a PostgreSQL installation typically runs > 100 times slower on updates than inserts and every other user has just said > "oh, that's ok then"? Or is it more likely that something peculiar is broken > on your setup. > > >> Removing the indexes doesn't help that much. >> >> Suggestion for the PG team. Deliver a more realistic postgres.conf by >> default. The default one seems to be aimed at ten year old PCs with >> very little RAM and disk space. At least deliver additional conf files >> for small, medium, large, huge setups.
I'd be curious to see results of the same "update" on a standard HDD vs the SSD, and maybe on a more typical database deployment hardware vs a macbook air. --patrick -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
