Received: from redrose.tibcofinance.com (redrose.tibcofinance.com [216.101.119.54]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA41781 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:55:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from boekhold@tibco.com) Received: from tekbspa.tibco.com ([216.101.119.76]) by redrose.tibcofinance.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA06125; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ukmail.tibco.com (tekuk01) by tekbspa.tibco.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07852; Thu, 24 Jun 99 00:53:11 PDT Received: from tibco.com by ukmail.tibco.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1) id IAA03926; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:53:45 +0100 Message-Id: <3771E013.E64518BA@tibco.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:36:51 +0200 From: Maarten Boekhold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo Cc: Steven Bradley , pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Performance References: <3.0.5.32.19990623150509.0092e990@poptop.llnl.gov> <86g13i86cz.fsf@athene.i.eunet.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > second. I then wrapped the whole series of inserts in a BEGIN/END > block. This increased the speed to about 1000 inserts per second. > Yup. A thousand. That's 40 times the speed. Pretty cool. :-) How did you measure this? Did you do (pseudo code): start_time = now SQL BEGIN SQL INSERT's.. ... SQL END end_time = now print number_inserts / (end_time - start_time) or SQL BEGIN start_time = now SQL INSERT's .... end_time = now SQL END print number_inserts / (end_time - start_time) This makes a difference, since a lot of processing is done on commit time. The second variant might thus be misleading. Maarten -- Maarten Boekhold, boekhold@tibco.com TIBCO Finance Technology Inc. The Atrium Strawinskylaan 3051 1077 ZX Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31 20 3012158, fax: +31 20 3012358 http://www.tibco.com