X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C65FD7115
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:46:48 -0400 (AST)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 49664-02
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:46:45 +0000 (GMT)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:43.707071 by SQLgrey-
Received: from tbmail.tradebot.com
	(Tradebot-Systems-1096753.cust-rtr.swbell.net [68.90.170.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811C3D70C0
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:46:46 -0400 (AST)
Received: from 192.168.200.29 ([192.168.200.29]) by tbmail.tradebot.com
	([192.168.1.50]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ;
	Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:46:48 +0000
Received: from krb06 by TBMAIL; 10 Nov 2005 14:46:48 -0600
Subject: Re: 8.x index insert performance
From: Kelly Burkhart <kelly@tradebotsystems.com>
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <867256.1130859455220.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: 
 <867256.1130859455220.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:46:48 -0600
Message-Id: <1131655608.7514.51.camel@krb06.tradebot.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1 
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.02 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019,
	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
X-Spam-Score: 0.02
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200511/196
X-Sequence-Number: 15453

On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 10:37 -0500, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> I'm surprised that no one seems to have yet suggested the following
> simple experiment:
> 
> Increase the RAM 4GB -> 8GB, tune for best performance, and
> repeat your 100M row insert experiment.
> 
> Does overall insert performance change?  Does the performance
> drop <foo> rows in still occur?  Does it occur in ~ the same place?
> Etc.
>  
> If the effect does seem to be sensitive to the amount of RAM in the
> server, it might be worth redoing the experiment(s) with 2GB and
> 16GB as well...

Ron,

I would like to try this, however, since I'm sitting about 1000 miles
away from the server, tweaking things is not as simple as one might
hope.  I would also like to understand what is going on before I start
changing things.  If I can't get a satisfactory explanation for what I'm
seeing with current hardware, I'll have memory added and see what
happens.

-K