Re: Performance problems testing with Spamassassin

"Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan@greenplum.com> writes:
> I guess we see the real culprit here.  Anyone surprised it's the WAL?

You have not proved that at all.

I haven't had time to look at Matthew's problem, but someone upthread
implied that it was doing a separate transaction for each word.  If so,
collapsing that to something more reasonable (say one xact per message)
would probably help a great deal.

            regards, tom lane