Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> John A Meinel wrote:
>
>
>>Surely this isn't what you have. You have *no* loop here, and you have
>>stuff like:
>> AND
>>(bayes_token_tmp) NOT IN (SELECT token FROM bayes_token);
>>
>>I'm guessing this isn't your last version of the function.
>>
>>As far as putting
John A Meinel wrote:
> Surely this isn't what you have. You have *no* loop here, and you have
> stuff like:
> AND
> (bayes_token_tmp) NOT IN (SELECT token FROM bayes_token);
>
> I'm guessing this isn't your last version of the function.
>
> As far as putting the CREATE TEMP TABLE inside th
Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't really see why you think that this path is going to lead to
>>>better performance than where you were before. Manipulation of the
>>>temp table is never going to be free, and IN (sub-select) is always
>>>
Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>I don't really see why you think that this path is going to lead to
>>better performance than where you were before. Manipulation of the
>>temp table is never going to be free, and IN (sub-select) is always
>>inherently not fast, and NOT IN (sub-
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Actually, from what I've read 4.2BSD actually took priority into account
when scheduling I/O.
FWIW, you can set I/O priority in recent versions of the Linux kernel
using ionice, which is part of RML's schedutils package (which was
recently merged into util-linux).
-Neil
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't really see why you think that this path is going to lead to
> better performance than where you were before. Manipulation of the
> temp table is never going to be free, and IN (sub-select) is always
> inherently not fast, and NOT IN (sub-select) is always inherently
> aw
John A Meinel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't really see why you think that this path is going to lead to
>> better performance than where you were before.
> So for an IN (sub-select), does it actually pull all of the rows from
> the other table, or is the planner smart en
John A Meinel wrote:
> Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>
> I recommend that you drop and re-create the temp table. There is no
> reason to have it around, considering you delete and re-add everything.
> That means you never have to vacuum it, since it always only contains
> the latest rows.
Whenever I
Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthew Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> for i in array_lower(intokenary, 1) .. array_upper(intokenary, 1)
>> LOOP
>>_token := intokenary[i];
>>INSERT INTO bayes_token_tmp VALUES (_token);
>> END LOOP;
>
>
>> UPDATE
>>bayes_token
>> SET
>>spam_count
Matthew Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> for i in array_lower(intokenary, 1) .. array_upper(intokenary, 1)
> LOOP
> _token := intokenary[i];
> INSERT INTO bayes_token_tmp VALUES (_token);
> END LOOP;
> UPDATE
> bayes_token
> SET
> spam_count = greatest_int(spam_co
Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> Okay,
>
> Here is the status of the SA updates and a question:
>
> Michael got SA changed to pass an array of tokens to the proc so right
> there we gained a ton of performance due to connections and transactions
> being grouped into one per email instead of one per toke
prasanna s wrote:
Does postgres support indexed views/materialised views that some of
the other databases support?
Thanks
Prasanna S
Hi!
It is not supported, but perhaps this will help you:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/matviews.html
---(en
What I really want to do is have the token array available as a record
so that I can query against it, but not have it take up the resources of
a real table. If I could copy from an array into a record then I can
even get rid of the loop. Anyone have any thoughts on how to do this?
You coul
No, unless you use some custom triggers.
prasanna s wrote:
Does postgres support indexed views/materialised views that some of the
other databases support?
Thanks
Prasanna S
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Does postgres support indexed views/materialised views that some of the other databases support?
Thanks
Prasanna S
Okay,
Here is the status of the SA updates and a question:
Michael got SA changed to pass an array of tokens to the proc so right
there we gained a ton of performance due to connections and transactions
being grouped into one per email instead of one per token.
Now I am working on making the pro
16 matches
Mail list logo
