X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA281D1B897
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:26:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 21848-02
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:26:19 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (unknown [209.128.84.228])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47082D1BA54
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:41:54 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (HELO spooky)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2)
	with ESMTP id 3519548; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:41:54 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Insert performance
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:40:59 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <3F3E3B47.13828.333B51D9@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <3F3E3B47.13828.333B51D9@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <200308161140.59764.josh@agliodbs.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200308/279
X-Sequence-Number: 3095

Shridhar,

> Unfortunately he can not use copy due to some constraints. 

Why not use COPY to load the table, and then apply the constraints by query 
afterwords?  It might not be faster, but then again it might.

> I was really amazed to see the numbers. First of all, it beat the sunOS
> machine left and right. Bruce posted some numbers of 9K inserts/sec. Here
> we see the same.
<snip>
> Comments? One thing I can't help to notice is sunOs is not on same scale.
> The sunOS machine is a 1GB RAM machine. It has oracle and mysql running on
> it and have 300MB swap in use but I am sure it has SCSI disk and in all
> respect I would rather expect a RISC machine to perform better than an
> athlon XP machine, at least for an IO.

It's been reported on this list several times that Solaris is the *worst* of 
the *nixes for PostgreSQL performance.   No analysis has been posted as to 
why; my own thoughts are:
	- Solaris' multi-threaded architecture which imposes a hefty per-process 
overhead, about triple that of Linux, slowing new connections and large 
multi-user activity;
	- Poor filesystem management; Sun simply hasn't kept up with IBM, Reiser, Red 
Hat and BSD in developing filesystems.
	... but that's based on inadequate experimentation, just a few tests on 
Bonnie++ on a Netra running Solaris 8.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco