From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
To: guoping.zhang@nec.com.au
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Guoping Zhang (E-mail) <guopingz@nstc.nec.com.au>
Subject: Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql (8.1.3)? any experiance?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:30:14 +0200
Message-ID: <82irlu2jk9.fsf@mid.bfk.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <003401c6aaf5$c8c2d900$74304c93@eddy>
References: <003401c6aaf5$c8c2d900$74304c93@eddy>
* Guoping Zhang:
> a) Anyone has the similar experience? How do you deal with it?
> b) Why TCP stack imposes such big delay? any tuning point I shall do?
If you use INSERT, you'll incur a network round-trip delay for each
record. Try using COPY FROM instead, possibly to a temporary table if
you need more complex calculations. If you do this, there won't be a
huge difference between local and remote access as long as the
bandwidth is sufficient.
--
Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Durlacher Allee 47 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76131 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
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: fweimer@bfk.de, guoping.zhang@nec.com.au, guopingz@nstc.nec.com.au
Subject: Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql (8.1.3)? any experiance?
In-Reply-To: <82irlu2jk9.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
* 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