X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FC452AB6 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:26:17 -0300 (ADT) 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 39861-07 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:26:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4269E52A37 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:26:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j5SEPxBE014992; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:26:00 -0400 (EDT) To: "Praveen Raja" Cc: "'Jacques Caron'" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Insert performance vs Table size In-reply-to: <002401c57bc6$ca56e2c0$4c0ca8c0@sto.netlight.se> References: <002401c57bc6$ca56e2c0$4c0ca8c0@sto.netlight.se> Comments: In-reply-to "Praveen Raja" message dated "Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:50:08 +0200" Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:25:59 -0400 Message-ID: <14991.1119968759@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/555 X-Sequence-Number: 13192 "Praveen Raja" writes: > I know that having indexes on the table adds an overhead but again does > this overhead increase (for an INSERT operation) with the number of rows > the table contains? Typical index implementations (such as b-tree) have roughly O(log N) cost to insert or lookup a key in an N-entry index. So yes, it grows, though slowly. regards, tom lane