Re: Update performance ... is 200,000 updates per hour what I should expect?
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Update performance ... is 200,000 updates per hour what I should expect? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87u14j9nqk.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Update performance ... is 200,000 updates per hour what I should expect? (Erik Norvelle <erik@norvelle.net>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Erik Norvelle <erik@norvelle.net> writes: > Here's the query I am running: > update indethom > set query_counter = nextval('s2.query_counter_seq'), -- Just for keeping track of how fast the query is running > sectref = (select clavis from s2.sectiones where > s2.sectiones.nomeoper = indethom.nomeoper > and s2.sectiones.refere1a = indethom.refere1a and s2.sectiones.refere1b = indethom.refere1b > and s2.sectiones.refere2a = indethom.refere2a and s2.sectiones.refere2b = indethom.refere2b > and s2.sectiones.refere3a = indethom.refere3a and s2.sectiones.refere3b = indethom.refere3b > and s2.sectiones.refere4a = indethom.refere4a and s2.sectiones.refere4b = indethom.refere4b); > > Here´s the query plan: > QUERY PLAN > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Seq Scan on indethom (cost=0.00..1310352.72 rows=10631972 width=212) > SubPlan > -> Index Scan using sectiones_ndx on sectiones (cost=0.00..6.03 rows=1 width=4) > Index Cond: ((nomeoper = $0) AND (refere1a = $1) AND (refere1b = $2) AND (refere2a = $3) AND (refere2b = $4)AND (refere3a = $5) AND (refere3b = $6) AND (refere4a = $7) AND (refere4b = $8)) > (4 rows) Firstly, you might try running "vacuum full" on both tables. If there are tons of extra dead records that are left-over they could be slowing down the update. This isn't the fastest possible plan but it's pretty good. You might be able to get it somewhat faster using the non-standard "from" clause on the update statement. update indethom set sectref = clavis from sectiones where sectiones.nomeoper = indethom.nomeoper and sectiones.refere1a = indethom.refere1a and sectiones.refere1b = indethom.refere1b and sectiones.refere2a = indethom.refere2a and sectiones.refere2b = indethom.refere2b and sectiones.refere3a = indethom.refere3a and sectiones.refere3b = indethom.refere3b and sectiones.refere4a = indethom.refere4a and sectiones.refere4b = indethom.refere4b This might be able to use a merge join which will take longer to get started because it has to sort both tables, but might finish faster. You might also try just paring the index down to just the two or three most useful columns. Is it common that something matches refere1a and refere1b but doesn't match the remaining? A 8-column index is a lot of overhead. I'm not sure how much that effects lookup times but it might be substantial. -- greg
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: