Tom, On 7/27/05 11:19 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> After playing with various indexes and what not I simply am unable to >> make this procedure perform any better. Perhaps someone on the list can >> spot the bottleneck and reveal why this procedure isn't performing that >> well or ways to make it better. > > There's not anything obviously wrong with that procedure --- all of the > updates are on primary keys, so one would expect reasonably efficient > query plans to get chosen. Perhaps it'd be worth the trouble to build > the server with profiling enabled and get a gprof trace to see where the > time is going. Yes - that would be excellent. We've used oprofile recently at Mark Wong's suggestion, which doesn't require rebuilding the source. - Luke ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
