Michal Szymanski wrote:
> There is another strange thing. We have two versions of our test
> >>environment one with production DB copy and second genereated with
> >>minimal data set and it is odd that update presented above on copy of
> >>production is executing 170ms but on small DB it executin
Michal Szymanski wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >(For the record, the reason you see nonlinear degradation is the
> >accumulation of tentatively-dead versions of the row, each of which has
> >to be rechecked by each later update.)
> >
> There is another strange thing. We have two versions of our
Tom Lane wrote:
Michal Szymanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test()
RETURNS void AS
$BODY$
DECLARE
BEGIN
FOR v_i IN 1..4000 LOOP
UPDATE group_fin_account_tst SET
credit = v_i
WHERE group_fin_account_tst_id = 1; -- for real procedure
Michal Szymanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test()
> RETURNS void AS
> $BODY$
> DECLARE
> BEGIN
> FOR v_i IN 1..4000 LOOP
> UPDATE group_fin_account_tst SET
> credit = v_i
> WHERE group_fin_account_tst_id = 1; -- for real procedure I
>
Recently I've wrote few pgSql procedures that generates invoices and
store it in postgres table. Small test has shown that there is
performance problem. I've thought that string operation in pgsql are not
perfect but it has appeared that 90% of time program waste on very
simple update.
Below i
