Hi,
I am using pg 7.4.1 and have created a trigger over table with 3 M rows.
If I start masive update on this table, pg executes this trigger on
every row and dramaticaly slows the system.
Exists in pg any way to define the trigger execution only if I have
changes on some fields?
For example I
I need this info because I have a table with ~1.5 M rows and if I start to
update 300 K from this rows it takes ~ 2h.
If I remove the trigger for this table all the time is ~ 1 min.
regards,
ivan.
Tom Lane wrote:
pginfo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was supprised that the pgsql trigger take ~8
Ok, thanks.
I will do it.
regards,
ivan.
Tom Lane wrote:
pginfo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In wich case will this trigger work faster if write it in C?
Given that the dominant part of the time will be spent down inside SPI
in either case, I doubt you will be able to see much difference
Hi,
I am running pg 7.4.1 on linux box.
I have a midle size DB with many updates and after it I try to run
vacuum full analyze.
It takes about 2 h.
If I try to dump and reload the DB it take 20 min.
How can I improve the vacuum full analyze time?
My configuration:
shared_buffers = 15000
it).
regards,
ivan.
Bill Moran wrote:
pginfo wrote:
Hi,
I am running pg 7.4.1 on linux box.
I have a midle size DB with many updates and after it I try to run
vacuum full analyze.
It takes about 2 h.
If I try to dump and reload the DB it take 20 min.
How can I improve the vacuum full
Hi,
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, pginfo wrote:
Hi,
I am running pg 7.4.1 on linux box.
I have a midle size DB with many updates and after it I try to run
vacuum full analyze.
Is there a reason to not use just regular vacuum / analyze (i.e. NOT
full)?
Yes, in case I
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, pginfo wrote:
Hi,
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, pginfo wrote:
Hi,
I am running pg 7.4.1 on linux box.
I have a midle size DB with many updates and after it I try to run
vacuum full analyze
Hi ,
I am not sure, but I remember the same problem.
It was ot 7.3.x version and and I needet to reindex the table.
I think after 7.4 vacuum also work correct with reindex.
But I am not sure.
regards,
ivan.
Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
Hi,
The problem was solved by reloading the Table.
the
Hi,
Dual Xeon P4 2.8
linux RedHat AS 3
kernel 2.4.21-4-EL-smp
2 GB ram
I can see the same problem:
procs memory swap io
system cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy
id wa
1 0 0 96212 61056 17202400
Hi ,
I have similare problem and found that the problem is by pg sort.
It is extremly slow by me.
Also in my case I tryed to migrate one db from oracle to pg .
To solve this problem I dinamicaly set sort_mem to some big value.
In this case the sort is working into RAM and is relative fast.
10 matches
Mail list logo