On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Eyal Wilde <eyal@impactsoft.co.il> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i ran vmstat during the test :
>
> [yb@centos08 ~]$ vmstat 1 15
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
> -----cpu-----
> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
> wa st
> 0 0 0 6131400 160556 1115792 0 0 1 12 22 17 0 0
> 100 0 0
> 0 0 0 6131124 160556 1115800 0 0 0 532 540 360 1 0 99
> 0 0
> 5 1 0 6127852 160556 1116048 0 0 0 3352 1613 1162 18 1 80
> 1 0
> 7 0 0 6122984 160556 1117312 0 0 0 14608 5408 3703 86 7 6
> 1 0
> 8 0 0 6121372 160556 1117968 0 0 0 13424 5434 3741 86 7 5
> 2 0
> 7 1 0 6120504 160556 1118952 0 0 0 13616 5296 3546 86 7 5
> 2 0
> 7 0 0 6119528 160572 1119728 0 0 0 13836 5494 3597 86 7 4
> 2 0
> 6 1 0 6118744 160572 1120408 0 0 0 15296 5552 3869 89 8 3
> 1 0
> 2 0 0 6118620 160572 1120288 0 0 0 13792 4548 3054 63 6 25
> 6 0
> 0 0 0 6118620 160572 1120392 0 0 0 3552 1090 716 8 1 88
> 3 0
> 0 0 0 6118736 160572 1120392 0 0 0 1136 787 498 1 0 98
> 1 0
> 0 0 0 6118868 160580 1120400 0 0 0 28 348 324 1 0 99
> 0 0
> 0 0 0 6118992 160580 1120440 0 0 0 380 405 347 1 0 99
> 1 0
> 0 0 0 6118868 160580 1120440 0 0 0 1544 468 320 1 0
> 100 0 0
> 0 0 0 6118720 160580 1120440 0 0 0 0 382 335 0 0 99
> 0 0
>
>
> the temp-tables normally don't populate more then 10 rows. they are being
> created in advanced. we don't drop them, we use ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS. i
> believe temp-tables are in the RAM, so no disk-i/o, right? and also: no
> writing to the system catalogs, right?
>
> about returning multiple refcursors, we checked this issue in the past, and
> we concluded that returning many small refcursors (all have the same
> structure), is faster than returning 1 big refcursor. dose it sound wired
> (maybe it worth more tests)? that's why we took that path.
no chance of seeing the code or a reasonable reproduction?
merlin