X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345299FA5CD for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:33:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41233-05 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:32:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from ns2.nec.com.au (ns2.nec.com.au [147.76.180.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BA29FA502 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:32:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from smtp1.nec.com.au (unknown [172.31.8.18]) by ns2.nec.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78F73B6A2 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:32:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from eddy (eddy.ssd.neca.nec.com.au [147.76.48.116]) by warp.ssd.neca.nec.com.au (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with SMTP id k6K6WkuP012461; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:32:47 +1000 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Guoping Zhang" To: "'Florian Weimer'" Cc: Subject: Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql (8.1.3)? any experiance? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:32:45 +1000 Message-ID: <003d01c6abc6$5039aff0$74304c93@eddy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <82bqrl1xwk.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/198 X-Sequence-Number: 20058 Thanks for all the replies from different ppl. As you pointed out, each INSERT/UPDATE operation will result in a TCP round-trip delay for postgresql (may well true for all DBMS), this is the big problem to challenge our requirements, as extensively modify the (legacy) applicatioin is not a preferable choice. I measured the round-trip (UDP) delay as below: a) SERVER A to SERVER B: 0.35ms SERVER A to itself (Local host): 0.022ms That is, in the tests I did yesterday, it is about 100k insert operations, which means added around 35 seconds of delay..... b) Also, using Iperf shows that TCP bandwidth between Server A and B is about 92.3 Mbits/sec TCP bandwidth between two ports at same Server A can reach 10.9Gbits/sec That indicates the performance impact for the networking.... There might be parameter in Solaris to tune the 'ack response delay', but I didn't try now. Thanks for all the answers... Regards, Guoping Zhang -----Original Message----- From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fweimer@bfk.de] Sent: 2006Ae7OA20EO 0:18 To: Guoping Zhang Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql (8.1.3)? any experiance? * Stephen Frost: > Actually, can't you stick multiple inserts into a given 'statement'? > ie: insert into abc (123); insert into abc (234); IIRC, this breaks with PQexecParams, which is the recommended method for executing SQL statements nowadays. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Durlacher Allee 47 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76131 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99