> > > > We're using a statement like this to dump between 500K and >5
> > > > million rows.
> > > >
> > > > COPY(SELECT SomeID FROM SomeTable WHERE SomeColumn > '0')
> > > > TO '/dev/shm/SomeFile.csv'
> > > >
> > > > Upon first run, this operation can take several minutes. Upon
> > > > second run, it will be complete in generally well under a minute.
> > > >
> > > Hmmm ... define "first" versus "second". What do you do to return
> > > it to the slow state?
> >
> > Interesting that you ask. I haven't found a very reliable way to
> > reproduce this.
> >
> > Typically, just waiting a while to run the same query the second
> > time will reproduce this behavior. I restarted postgresql and i
> > was reproduced as well. However, I can't find a way to flush
> > buffers/etc, to reproduce the
>
> what happens if you do something like:
>
> select count(*) from (select ...);
>
> i.e. don't make the .csv file each time. How's the performance
> without making the csv versus making it?
It's the same.
And regarding the /dev/shm, we do watch that memory doesn't become
contentious. We've also done the dump to another set of disk spindles,
and
we've seen the same performance.
So at the end of the day, it certainly does seem like a read-bottleneck
off
of the disks. Unfortunately, from a hardware perspective, there's not
much
we can do about it currently.
Does anyone have any experiences they can share about using partitioning
or
index tricks to speed up what should be basically large contiguous rows
from
a table, based on a single column WHERE constraint?
H
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
|
