Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question?
От | Nick Matheson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CD2C640.8030303@noaa.gov обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question? (Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Simple (hopefully) throughput question?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Pierre- Reading from the tables is very fast, what bites you is that postgres has to convert the data to wire format, send it to the client, and the client has to decode it and convert it to a format usable by your application. Writing a custom aggregate in C should be a lot faster since it has direct access to the data itself. The code path from actual table data to an aggregate is much shorter than from table data to the client... I think your comments really get at what our working hypothesis was, but given that our experience is limited compared to you all here on the mailing lists we really wanted to make sure we weren't missing any alternatives. Also the writing of custom aggregators will likely leverage any improvements we make to our storage throughput. Thanks, Nick
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: