X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627879FA4A7 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:01:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67789-05 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:01:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from kenobi.snowman.net (kenobi.snowman.net [70.84.9.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BF79FA47F for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:01:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: by kenobi.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C397A5805A; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:01:35 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:01:35 -0400 From: Stephen Frost To: Guoping Zhang Cc: 'Florian Weimer' , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql (8.1.3)? any experiance? Message-ID: <20060719140135.GE20016@kenobi.snowman.net> Mail-Followup-To: Guoping Zhang , 'Florian Weimer' , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <82irlu2jk9.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <003501c6ab05$a4978f20$74304c93@eddy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="veXX9dWIonWZEC6h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <003501c6ab05$a4978f20$74304c93@eddy> X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/ X-Info: http://www.snowman.net X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.16-2-vserver-686 (i686) X-Uptime: 09:54:26 up 24 days, 3:50, 17 users, load average: 1.58, 1.43, 1.29 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/193 X-Sequence-Number: 20053 --veXX9dWIonWZEC6h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline * Guoping Zhang (guoping.zhang@nec.com.au) wrote: > Obviously, if there is no better solution, the TCP round trip penalty will > stop us doing so as we do have performance requirement. Actually, can't you stick multiple inserts into a given 'statement'? ie: insert into abc (123); insert into abc (234); I'm not 100% sure if that solves the round-trip issue, but it might.. Also, it looks like we might have multi-value insert support in 8.2 (I truely hope so anyway), so you could do something like this: insert into abc (123),(234); > I guess there shall be quite number of people out there facing the similar > problem, right? No alternative solution? Havn't run into it myself... Quite often you either have large inserts being done using COPY commands (data warehousing and analysis work) or you have a relatively small number of one-off inserts (OLTP) per transaction. Enjoy, Stephen --veXX9dWIonWZEC6h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEvjs/rzgMPqB3kigRAoTfAJ9gz6DbG5CKbADtatBCduayoVDYigCfYeFy nUjjCrdg4f7x7VcR92eFnJE= =AYQR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --veXX9dWIonWZEC6h--