Re: Key/Value reference table generation: INSERT/UPDATE performance
От | Peter Childs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Key/Value reference table generation: INSERT/UPDATE performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | a2de01dd0705220205l261ac149n6f168fbb6141480c@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Key/Value reference table generation: INSERT/UPDATE performance (valgog <valgog@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 22 May 2007 01:23:03 -0700, valgog <valgog@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there any reason why count is not not null? (That should siplify your code by removing the coalesce)
insert is more efficient than update because update is always a delete followed by an insert.
Oh and group by is nearly always quicker than distinct and can always? be rewritten as such. I'm not 100% sure why its different but it is.
Peter.
I found several post about INSERT/UPDATE performance in this group,
but actually it was not really what I am searching an answer for...
I have a simple reference table WORD_COUNTS that contains the count of
words that appear in a word array storage in another table.
CREATE TABLE WORD_COUNTS
(
word text NOT NULL,
count integer,
CONSTRAINT PK_WORD_COUNTS PRIMARY KEY (word)
)
WITHOUT OIDS;
Is there any reason why count is not not null? (That should siplify your code by removing the coalesce)
insert is more efficient than update because update is always a delete followed by an insert.
Oh and group by is nearly always quicker than distinct and can always? be rewritten as such. I'm not 100% sure why its different but it is.
Peter.
I have some PL/pgSQL code in a stored procedure like
FOR r
IN select id, array_of_words
from word_storage
LOOP
begin
-- insert the missing words
insert into WORD_COUNTS
( word, count )
( select word, 0
from ( select distinct (r.array_of_words)
[s.index] as d_word
from generate_series(1,
array_upper( r.array_of_words, 1 ) ) as s(index) ) as distinct_words
where word not in ( select d_word from
WORD_COUNTS ) );
-- update the counts
update WORD_COUNTS
set count = COALESCE( count, 0 ) + 1
where word in ( select distinct ( r.array_of_words)[s.index] as
word
from generate_series(1,
array_upper( r.array_of_words, 1) ) as s(index) );
exception when others then
error_count := error_count + 1;
end;
record_count := record_count + 1;
END LOOP;
This code runs extremely slowly. It takes about 10 minutes to process
10000 records and the word storage has more then 2 million records to
be processed.
Does anybody have a know-how about populating of such a reference
tables and what can be optimized in this situation.
Maybe the generate_series() procedure to unnest the array is the place
where I loose the performance?
Are the set update/inserts more effitient, then single inserts/updates
run in smaller loops?
Thanks for your help,
Valentine Gogichashvili
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: