Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikKTc2GPm87Liztk3UTdRY+_THquaaW3qoMe2+d@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:46 AM, <david@lang.hm> wrote: >>> Actually for me the main "con" with streaming analyze is that it adds >>> significant CPU burden to already not too fast load process. Especially if >>> it's automatically done for any load operation performed (and I can't see >>> how it can be enabled on some threshold). >> >> two thoughts >> >> 1. if it's a large enough load, itsn't it I/O bound? > > Sometimes. Our COPY is not as cheap as we'd like it to be. With a 24 drive RAID-10 array that can read at ~1GB/s I am almost always CPU bound during copies. This isn't wholly bad as it leaves spare IO for the rest of the machine so regular work carries on just fine.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: