Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple COPY FROM
От | Horst Dehmer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple COPY FROM |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0E6B7417-72C9-42A3-86F9-A080ADCFB2C7@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple COPY FROM (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Insert performance for large transaction with multiple
COPY FROM
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
The types referenced by the foreign keys are the same Numeric(20). Since the complete schema (of about 300 tables) is generated, I will just try char(20) instead of numeric(20) in the nextdays to see if it makes any difference. Which I somehow doubt. But first I'm following the lead of the tables/indexes iostats given by Jeff. obj_item_loc references the following three tables and there should be no surprises. CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE loc ( loc_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL, ... CONSTRAINT loc_pkey PRIMARY KEY (loc_id), … ) CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE obj_item ( obj_item_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL, ... CONSTRAINT obj_item_pkey PRIMARY KEY (obj_item_id), … ) CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE rptd ( rptd_id numeric(20,0) NOT NULL, ... CONSTRAINT rptd_pkey PRIMARY KEY (rptd_id), … ) On 12.01.2013, at 23:18, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Horst Dehmer <horst.dehmer@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes, the ids is something I don't like either. >> They carry additional semantics, which I cannot make go away. >> How are chances char(20) is more time efficient than numeric(20)? >> Disk space is no problem here. > > What are the other tables like then? > > The exact data types involved are at issue here, so it matters.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: