I was curious to see how postgres would perform with wal on a tmpfs vs disk
here are some numbers I got from pgbench. Let me know if I did something
stupid, this is the first time I've used pgbench. The wal on tmpfs method is
not significantly faster.
[[ WAL ON TMPFS ]]
pgbench -i -s 10 -U postgr
ompt.com/products/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
--
Gene Hart
cell: 443-604-2679
Keep in mind if you have multiple rules for a master table, it won't return the number of affected rows as you might expect. This screws up Hibernate which I'm using for my application. It checks the return value to make sure it was inserted properly. Luckily I only need one rule which puts it into
le. What would be an efficient way to do the transfer? Since the updates occur somewhat randomly, wouldnt the tuples in the stable table then be out of natural timestamp order?
thanks for all of your help and comments! it is greatly appreciated!Gene HartOn 8/9/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a table that inserts lots of rows (million+ per day) int8 as primary key, and I cluster by a timestamp which is approximately the timestamp of the insert beforehand and is therefore in increasing order and doesn't change. Most of the rows are updated about 3 times over time roughly within th
ciples I would like to know why its the _right_
>model to follow in designing a DBMS (or database). The way my mind
>sees it, should we not rather be interested in what works?
How do you know it works? Without the theory and model, you
really do not.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
