Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql works too slow

Try enabliing your checkpoint_segments. In my example, our database restore took 75mins. After enabling checkpoints_segments to 20, we cut it down to less than 30 minutes. Increasing maintenance_work_mem might help too ... or several other settings ... with no information about exactly *what* is

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql works too slow

Steve Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Try enabliing your checkpoint_segments. In my example, our database > restore took 75mins. After enabling checkpoints_segments to 20, we cut > it down to less than 30 minutes. Increasing maintenance_work_mem might help too ... or several other settings ...

Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql works too slow

Nurlan, Try enabliing your checkpoint_segments. In my example, our database restore took 75mins. After enabling checkpoints_segments to 20, we cut it down to less than 30 minutes. Is your pg_xlog on a seperate disc..or at least a partition? This will help too. A checkpoints_segments of 20, if

[PERFORM] Postgresql works too slow

Hello. I'm trying to restore my database from dump in several parrallel processes, but restore process works too slow. Number of rows about 100 000 000, RAM: 8192M CPU: Ultra Sparc 3 Number of CPU: 4 OS: SunOS sun 5.8 RDBMS: PostgreSQL 8.0 prstat info

Re: [PERFORM] plperl vs plpgsql

After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex), an earthling, wrote: > Christopher Browne wrote: >>After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex) belched >>out: >>>i am thinking about swiching to plperl as it seems to me much more >>>flexible and easier to creat

[PERFORM] refcurosr vs. setof

Hello, I need to write several PL/pgSQL functions all returning a "result set" wich can be obtained by a single SELECT statement. For now the functions are called by a Java application. Both REFCURSOR and SETOF serve my purpose, but I was wondering if there is a perfonance difference between the

Re: [PERFORM] plperl vs plpgsql

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Alex wrote: Is there a performance difference between the two? Hello, It depends on what you are using it for. My experience is that for some reason plPGSQL is faster when looping but other than that they should be very similar. which of the PL is most widely used. One problem

Re: [PERFORM] plperl vs plpgsql

On 2005-04-17 14:56, Alex wrote: > Is there a performance difference between the two? As Christopher already pointed out, it depends on what you want to do. If you're doing some complex string processing, it will be easier (and in some cases) faster to do in plperl, if you're mainly dealing with s

Re: [PERFORM] plperl vs plpgsql

Is there a performance difference between the two? which of the PL is most widely used. One problem i have with the plpgsql is that the quoting is really a pain. Christopher Browne wrote: After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex) belched out: i am thinking about swich

Re: [PERFORM] immutable functions vs. join for lookups ?

On 4/17/05, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > c) CREATE FUNCTION id2username(oid) RETURNS text > > > LANGUAGE 'SQL' IMMUTABLE AS ' > > > SELECT username AS RESULT FROM users WHERE uid = $1';