X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAF29F94EA for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42282-02 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:29 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115689F9398 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9B03B56435; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:32:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Wed, 24 May 2006 16:32:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:32:25 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: "Daniel J. Luke" Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Getting even more insert performance (250m+rows/day) Message-ID: <20060524213225.GM59464@pervasive.com> References: <20060524200349.GA10753@uio.no> <9E8E3745-64F2-4908-BF16-284CF7834760@geeklair.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9E8E3745-64F2-4908-BF16-284CF7834760@geeklair.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060524:dluke@geeklair.net::NAyqE+P59FnQW9yq:0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000007eSL X-Hashcash: 1:20:060524:sgunderson@bigfoot.com::RknI5T08qESiPNhW:000000000000000 0000000000000000000000006Xeb X-Hashcash: 1:20:060524:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::g/Rd2hyDC8A2Lbo/:00000 00000000000000000000000047rt X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/457 X-Sequence-Number: 19244 On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:54PM -0400, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On May 24, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > >Have you tried fiddling with the checkpointing settings? Check your > >logs -- > >if you get a warning about checkpoints being too close together, > >that should > >give you quite some boost. > > no warnings in the log (I did change the checkpoint settings when I > set up the database, but didn't notice an appreciable difference in > insert performance). Keep in mind that the default warning time of 30 seconds is pretty conservative; you'd want to bump that up to 300 seconds or so, probably. As for the suggestion of multiple insert runs at a time, I suspect that would just result in a lot of contention for some mutex/semaphore in the index. Your best bet really is to run gprof and post those results. It's also possible that this is fixed be a recent patch to HEAD that reduces the amount of traffic on the index metapage, something gprof would probably confirm. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461