X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A6D9F9F2D for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:18:58 -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 24302-09 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:18:48 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD599F9316 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:18:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5K1HKMB023028; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:17:20 -0400 (EDT) To: Brian Hurt cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Some performance numbers, with thoughts In-reply-to: <44973CC6.20309@janestcapital.com> References: <44973CC6.20309@janestcapital.com> Comments: In-reply-to Brian Hurt message dated "Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:09:42 -0400" Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:17:19 -0400 Message-ID: <23027.1150766239@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/382 X-Sequence-Number: 19739 Brian Hurt writes: > For long involved reasons I'm hanging out late at work today, and rather > than doing real, productive work, I thought I'd run some benchmarks > against our development PostgreSQL database server. My conclusions are > at the end. Ummm ... you forgot to mention Postgres version? Also, which client and server encodings did you use (that starts to get to be a noticeable issue for high COPY rates)? > 1) Transaction time is a huge hit on the small block sizes. Right. For small transactions with a drive honoring fsync, you should expect to get a max of about one commit per platter revolution. Your numbers work out to a shade under 5000 commits/minute, from which I speculate a 7200 RPM drive ... do you know what it really is? regards, tom lane