Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F933B5DBC4 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:47:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59818-02 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:47:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.gransy.com (mail.gransy.com [82.208.29.194]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C040EB5D90E for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:47:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428064A220B for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:47:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at nathalia.gransy.com Received: from mail.gransy.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Nathalka.gransy.com.gransy.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41TMtt3KFSpR for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:47:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.221] (ip-78-45-133-255.net.upcbroadband.cz [78.45.133.255]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B3BF4A2214 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:47:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E08EC67.6090304@fuzzy.cz> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:47:35 +0200 From: Tomas Vondra User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110619 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance issue with Insert References: <4E084F71020000250003EC59@gw.wicourts.gov> <4E08DE81.4040100@fuzzy.cz> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201106/254 X-Sequence-Number: 44187 Dne 27.6.2011 22:14, Jenish napsal(a): > And I am testing the limit for the concurrent active users. When I am > running my test for 400 concurrent user ie. Active connection. I am > getting good performance but when I am running the same the same test > for 950 concurrent users I am getting very bad performance. This is typical behaviour - the performance is good up until some point, then it degrades much faster. Why do you even need such number of connections? Does that really improve performance (e.g. how many inserts do you do with 100 and 400 connections)? Such number of active connections is not going to give you any advantage I guess ... regards Tomas