Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B4A650177 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:33:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68577-10 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:33:03 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-out1.uio.no (mail-out1.uio.no [129.240.10.57]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD8D650111 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:33:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-mx6.uio.no ([129.240.10.47]) by mail-out1.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KaG58-0007UA-4V; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:33:02 +0200 Received: from 165.84-49-232.nextgentel.com ([84.49.232.165] helo=[10.0.0.10]) by mail-mx6.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) user tfinneid (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KaG57-0000qQ-N3; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:33:02 +0200 Message-ID: <48BC5178.60906@ifi.uio.no> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:32:56 +0200 From: Thomas Finneid User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Carey CC: Scott Marlowe , Craig Ringer , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: slow update of index during insert/copy References: <48BA9D65.2020001@ifi.uio.no> <48BB4A2D.9080404@postnewspapers.com.au> <48BBD22E.4090308@ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-SPF-Received: X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.5, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.502, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: F8A9DEB408407ED262A7CF65803CF0D175DC33E4 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 84.49.232.165 spam_score: -44 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 55 max/h 6 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200809/14 X-Sequence-Number: 31327 Scott Carey wrote: > For a development box, just enable write-back caching regardless of the > battery back up situation. As long as its not your only copy of Will have a look at it, the data is not important and can be reproduced any time on any machine. The controller I have is a Areca ARC-1220 Serial ATA 8 port RAID Controller - PCI-E, SATA II, so I dont know exactly what it supports of caching. > On JDBC and COPY: > Thanks for the info on the patch to support it -- however the versions > posted there are rather old, and the 8.3 version is not even the same as > the 8 month old current release -- its 3 releases prior and 8 months > older than that. There are quite a few bugfixes between 8.3 - v600 and > v603: http://jdbc.postgresql.org/changes.html and that concerns me. Is > there a patched version of the latest driver? Or will that have to be It was someone on the list who told me about the patch, I dont know the situation of the patch at the current moment. I am using the patch on an PG 8.2.7, and it works fine. > On the performance impact of using COPY instead of INSERT : out of > curiosity, were you comparing COPY against raw row-by-row inserts (slow) > or JDBC batch inserts (faster) or multi-row inserts: INSERT into X > (a,b,c) values (1,2,3) , (4,5,6) , (7,8,9 ) , (10,11,12) .... > ? I tested row by row and jdbc batch, but I dont have the measured numbers any more. But I suppose I could recreate the test if, need be. regards thomas