Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D601337B5C for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:14:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82394-03 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:14:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from nm9-vm1.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm9-vm1.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.53.193]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DB7D133798F for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:14:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [98.139.52.197] by nm9.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2010 18:14:33 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.168] by tm10.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2010 18:14:33 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1051.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2010 18:14:33 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 848621.34938.bm@omp1051.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 89514 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Oct 2010 18:14:31 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1288203271; bh=X0if5QKFN7LMvs+lojCFudqTj14pGbTMOxuW/iV6gLI=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=3x4Oo/8emgKaXP1ScE3YyhpL0f7uCZplOS/FO+8Qbq4cg6Ar7e4z30W3h3imnERxX0VvBUqiXaI7SQMjYnH4NL4Hz3wybWsWifC4QYAH9/FIobc9oHeov9tFwJblhyo2couAWodHKl54btaXrOAjumRss4AT0WiiXOYu9TabE3o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=D+WIFlRMNNJQzZJHxPbb4NbO5+K2R/HnIS6o1U3QZXvpXnZNIFQDxZc3Mopvon3Zfjf6xwgWQqAflDs+sUTPcVNvxb8nUhpYeP28SFDu9w6W+RG6JiaRyMcaBVXgGml5YdmjrA9LrsSSC6XPT+Auh6lcRbcVA2JqpP7sYQmBSls=; Message-ID: <173298.80592.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: v9t7X.EVM1lXm6I0bGCHTl_ddGZG6kA1BXUskPtHwlkT_61 4TD6W7AiI Received: from [122.177.216.163] by web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:14:30 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 References: <402913.53404.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <208728.42197.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <770715.39613.qm@web29003.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4CC741FF.8050709@vmsinfo.com> <4CC74E31.6060307@vmsinfo.com> <252538.42200.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:14:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Divakar Singh Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle To: Merlin Moncure Cc: Robert Haas , Mladen Gogala , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-108147677-1288203270=:80592" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.594 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201010/489 X-Sequence-Number: 40907 --0-108147677-1288203270=:80592 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 To: Divakar Singh Cc: Robert Haas ; Mladen Gogala ; 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 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 --0-108147677-1288203270=:80592 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
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

--0-108147677-1288203270=:80592--