Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1373F1336473 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:36:37 -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 91230-07 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:36:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from nm9-vm1.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm9-vm1.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.53.193]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 288721337B56 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:36:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [98.139.52.188] by nm9.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2010 18:36:28 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.139] by tm1.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2010 18:36:28 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2010 18:36:28 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 601957.31070.bm@omp1022.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 44198 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Oct 2010 18:36:26 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1288031786; bh=MgKmhLEcFgGTr895f3IPGISWrhlZb0yLB7slVYg2lOI=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JXkCpuGl+vwkeH7qaSVBp/8ZQw3rIBAiubfq+8PKl2xmhsTIQknttGOOsTwoo/Lb8NnmNGoPTwQPD6FS8b3iiO5Ecc7AAxKzJulDwVnUns2SeEW8AkDm23Ozk4pwRCrfLNtj5U8T9Bl+eprnYTtpdTKGhgQqnhxLK0JW/C7COxw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hmslLDUnOoe4p6C+ecWXT/hChdm4mi0VKirYjfR8Dh0LhSDSRfeEnndFNf+n2AKx0etd9TkdKLFRVwH1QNwT0UmvTzeUJe4ZeL9fxpx19KcNMFz5TXCXeQ+ApTnMEuQzrAHvGy83R/xQQrfefLMCXd40X1j+saV50pIKZcZIo9I=; Message-ID: <781874.42830.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: MMOqOPEVM1nj.PKLkc9uAKx8a96U6cMOYig146VzjZiPejS huth5mivgLWXCVTu9KotgrnAXZ2C8u6DjmIlcu1Y530wkfcTAsUU55WP8DsB hqu0fIaY1hyg4zxkfLuaAin6ejnawLCuYfWATeiq_HG0jbmxHn632Sdw2sEv K1MfjkQ0w_vXhtOhqoRTg_XHir0DPomK.HgfIGlB19rxa37MMTRmaYx7t2jD h21USz3T17j9urdr8g8eMrolHChTs0NybN0Au9gXtK2m.Xs5fk4CyRMnbbxL ntKh6pDq9_xfwE1LayVwtszTcr6bPaJ.KVrjoCsxpJdYEG.6zkqrlA5O1MVW 7DeeysLmAZ9ssO3gsKxUEq6Dm7O1kRurBDek- Received: from [194.237.142.6] by web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:36:24 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920 References: <402913.53404.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:36:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Divakar Singh Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle To: Scott Marlowe Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1442285306-1288031784=:42830" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.909 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201010/402 X-Sequence-Number: 40820 --0-1442285306-1288031784=:42830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Storage test was simple, but the data (seconds taken) for INSERT test for PG vs Oracle for 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 indexes was: PG: 25 30 37 42 45 Oracle: 33 43 50 65 68 Rows inserted: 100,000 Above results show good INSERT performance of PG when using SQL procedures. But performance when I use C++ lib is very bad. I did that test some time back so I do not have data for that right now. ________________________________ From: Scott Marlowe To: Divakar Singh Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 11:56:27 PM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Divakar Singh wrote: > Hello Experts, > My application uses Oracle DB, and makes use of OCI interface. > I have been able to develop similar interface using postgreSQL library. > However, I have done some tests but results for PostgreSQL have not been > encouraging for a few of them. Tell us more about your tests and results please. --0-1442285306-1288031784=:42830 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Storage test was simple, but the data (seconds taken) for INSERT test for PG vs Oracle for 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 indexes was:
PG:
25
30
37
42
45


Oracle:

33
43
50
65
68
Rows inserted: 100,000
Above results show good INSERT performance of PG when using SQL procedures. But performance when I use C++ lib is very bad. I did that test some time back so I do not have data for that right now.

From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 11:56:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Experts,
> My application uses Oracle DB, and makes use of OCI interface.
> I have been able to develop similar interface using postgreSQL library.
> However, I have done some tests but results for PostgreSQL have not been
> encouraging for a few of them.

Tell us more about your tests and results please.

--0-1442285306-1288031784=:42830--