pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <173298.80592.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik1Acnzpm62XgHADZtZ0sgkxSo=43jKrX7+N_f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <402913.53404.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTi=0iZDF7EHebukEJ+jxFN8giCy3iXxYuSe_mLUY@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=cy67frLbx+YH_uUk5vqPsxt8u-Q_cpU74pYMq@mail.gmail.com>
	<208728.42197.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTikeYj52q1v1RcwCYR=9Kv5mxJmh+Q+KvXcmibYK@mail.gmail.com>
	<770715.39613.qm@web29003.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTinaW3ZtGJbzgAARG0WfAOJxSPAbdVAZa6X_2dh+@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CC741FF.8050709@vmsinfo.com>
	<AANLkTinntqfT1b9xaRfGGqVwwsGhyA7=JhLsuQ10Xzyy@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CC74E31.6060307@vmsinfo.com>
	<AANLkTimf9Nj8A+Spiu9q3suvZ+h71CHXRFTXFo_5aBYj@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=-fK6ODDNJPntq3OeUJQzKtHbsmkdDM851waOG@mail.gmail.com>
	<252538.42200.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTik1Acnzpm62XgHADZtZ0sgkxSo=43jKrX7+N_f1@mail.gmail.com>

yes this is a very clearly visible problem.
The difference b/w oracle and PG increases with more rows.
when oracle takes 3 GB, PG takes around 6 GB.
I only use varchar.
I will try to use your tips on "smart table layout, toast compression".
Assuming these suggested options do not have any performance penalty?

 Best Regards,
Divakar




________________________________
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>; Mladen Gogala 
<mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Wed, October 27, 2010 11:36:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres insert performance and storage requirement 
compared to Oracle

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Thanks for your inputs on the insert performance part.
> Any suggestion on storage requirement?
> VACUUM is certainly not an option, because this is something related to
> maintenance AFTER insertion.
> I am talking about the plain storage requirement w.r. to Oracle, which I
> observed is twice of Oracle in case millions of rows are inserted.
> Anybody who tried to analyze the average storage requirement of PG w.r. to
> Oracle?

There isn't much you can to about storage use other than avoid stupid
things (like using char() vs varchar()), smart table layout, toast
compression, etc.  Are you sure this is a problem?

merlin



      

view thread (53+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <173298.80592.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Permalink:  ../173298.80592.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/173298.80592.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: dpsmails@yahoo.com, mmoncure@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com
  Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
  In-Reply-To: <173298.80592.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox