From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: femski <hypertree@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres batch write very slow - what to do
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:15:39 -0400
Message-ID: <29684.1174011339@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9492938.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <9452092.post@talk.nabble.com>
<45F685B7.5040001@enterprisedb.com>
<9453712.post@talk.nabble.com>
<9473692.post@talk.nabble.com>
<b42b73150703141752q64ddebc2mb53c501047d0b7b6@mail.gmail.com>
<9486986.post@talk.nabble.com>
<b42b73150703141926p220b86c3m663f12aabd678d78@mail.gmail.com>
<9492938.post@talk.nabble.com>
femski <hypertree@yahoo.com> writes:
> If 17k record/sec is right around expected then I must say I am little
> disappointed from the "most advanced open source database".
Well, the software is certainly capable of much more than that;
for instance, on a not-too-new Dell x86_64 machine:
regression=# \timing
Timing is on.
regression=# create table t1(f1 int);
CREATE TABLE
Time: 3.614 ms
regression=# insert into t1 select * from generate_series(1,1000000);
INSERT 0 1000000
Time: 3433.483 ms
which works out to something a little shy of 300K rows/sec. Of course
the main difference from what I think you're trying to do is the lack of
any per-row round trips to the client code. But you need to look into
where the bottleneck is, not just assume it's insoluble.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, hypertree@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Postgres batch write very slow - what to do
In-Reply-To: <29684.1174011339@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox