Thanks Rod.
While I was waiting for my post to make it I went ahead and made the key an
int. It improved it a lot, but was still pretty slow.
This is weird:
I was testing in a query window thus:
UPDATE baz SET customer_id = '1234' WHERE ( SELECT baz_number FROM baz WHERE
customer_id IS NULL LIMIT 1000 );
In the version of the table I posted this took 3 1/2 minutes. By making
baz_number not part of the key, adding a baz_key of int4 and adjusting the
above query for that it dropped to 1 1/2 minutes.
But, I realized that was not how my app was going to be updating, so I wrote
a little simulation in JAVA that gets a list of baz_keys where the customer_
is null and then iterates through the list one at a time attempting to
UPDATE baz SET customer_id = '1234' WHERE baz_key = <bazKeyFromList> AND
customer_id IS NULL. One thousand iterations took only 37 seconds.
It would appear PostgreSQL is tuned towards single updates as opposed to
handing a big bunch off to the query engine. Does that seem right? Seems
odd to me.
Anyway thanks for your response. I'll add some indexes and see if I can't
shave that time down even further.
__________________________________________________________________
John Pagakis
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If you can't beat them, arrange
to have them beaten."
-- George Carlin
This signature generated by
... and I Quote!!(tm) Copyright (c) 1999 SpaZmodic Frog Software, Inc.
www.spazmodicfrog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rod Taylor
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Postgresql Performance
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Performance Concern
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 08:21, John Pagakis wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> I have a table that will require 100,000 rows initially.
>
> Assume the following (some of the field names have been changed for
> confidentiality reasons):
>
> CREATE TABLE baz (
> baz_number CHAR(15) NOT NULL,
> customer_id CHAR(39),
> foobar_id INTEGER,
> is_cancelled BOOL DEFAULT false NOT NULL,
> create_user VARCHAR(60) NOT NULL,
> create_datetime TIMESTAMP DEFAULT 'now()' NOT NULL,
> last_update_user VARCHAR(60) NOT NULL,
> last_update_datetime TIMESTAMP DEFAULT 'now()' NOT NULL,
> CONSTRAINT PK_baz PRIMARY KEY (baz_number)
> );
>
> ALTER TABLE baz
> ADD FOREIGN KEY (customer_id) REFERENCES purchase (customer_id);
>
> ALTER TABLE baz
> ADD FOREIGN KEY (foobar_id) REFERENCES foobar (foobar_id);
>
>
> Using JDBC, it took approximately one hour to insert 100,000 records. I
> have an algorithm to generate a unique baz_number - it is a mixture of
alpha
> and numerics.
Using an int for identification is certainly suggested, however it
sounds like you may be short a few indexes on the foreign key'd fields.
EXPLAIN ANALYZE output is always nice..
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
