Received: from localhost (IDENT:root@hectic-2.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.68.204]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11658 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:01:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu) Received: from alumni.caltech.edu (lockhart@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA24372; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:02:24 GMT Sender: lockhart@hub.org Message-ID: <377191AF.BE5F54A@alumni.caltech.edu> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:02:23 +0000 From: Thomas Lockhart X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Bradley CC: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Performance References: <3.0.5.32.19990623150509.0092e990@poptop.llnl.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Is it unrealistic to expect Postgres to insert on the order of 100 > records per second on a Pentium 400 MHz/SCSI class machine running > Linux? (Solaris on a comparable platform has about 1/2 the > performance) I'd expect roughly equivalent performance on different platforms. I measured the insert performance a couple of years ago and found roughly 50 inserts per second on my dual processor, 180MHz PPro system, which was the same performance as I had on an Ingres installation on a medium-speed Alpha/OSF-1 box. Without knowing more about your memory and disk setup, I'll guess that you can use more memory, can bump buffer size by using "-B 1024" or something similar, and running without mandatory fsync() (use the "-F" option). However, istm that your system should do better than 10ips before you invoke "-F", otherwise you'll just be working around another underlying problem/bottleneck. Good luck. - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California