X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704D2529E1 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:49:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72073-08 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:49:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.207]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F79529FC for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:49:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so405340wra for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:49:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TVsVqRh4sJhShFyw5ePGO/JPuas/pWnWKAB9pCXSW3Bub5Gc6eHQ5lD/AhxvX2XbQo+YgkfHlOpmEAvAbKuHbCWfjCGz7u7Titwn36it/atbFZnBKagUNaXhDj9KvsJyF0HM+iufNe1nxJTiGUFjJxGEWAo0B8t+rPnUJVrBS+E= Received: by 10.54.37.47 with SMTP id k47mr840228wrk; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.120.11 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <59d991c40507191148e6f9ec5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:48:54 -0400 From: Christopher Petrilli Reply-To: Christopher Petrilli To: Tom Lane Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions Cc: PFC , Vivek Khera , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <7843.1121796596@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <59d991c4050717100874c08a86@mail.gmail.com> <59d991c4050719084460b376f1@mail.gmail.com> <4541.1121788647@sss.pgh.pa.us> <59d991c40507190930244ba9bb@mail.gmail.com> <7224.1121791328@sss.pgh.pa.us> <59d991c4050719095440cd3de5@mail.gmail.com> <7436.1121792725@sss.pgh.pa.us> <59d991c405071910133e28031a@mail.gmail.com> <7843.1121796596@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.148 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, RCVD_BY_IP X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/308 X-Sequence-Number: 13549 On 7/19/05, Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Petrilli writes: > >> Are you sure the backend is reading directly from the file, and not > >> through psql? (\copy, or COPY FROM STDIN, would go through psql.) >=20 > > The exact command is: > > COPY test (columnlist...) FROM '/tmp/loadfile'; >=20 > I tried to replicate this by putting a ton of COPY commands like that > into a file and doing "psql -f file ...". I don't see more than about > 0.3% CPU going to psql. So there's something funny about your test > conditions. How *exactly* are you invoking psql? It is a subprocess of a Python process, driven using a pexpect interchange. I send the COPY command, then wait for the '=3D#' to come back. Chris --=20 | Christopher Petrilli | petrilli@gmail.com