pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFW:
3+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* FW:
@ 2007-05-09 01:14 Orhan Aglagul <oaglagul@cittio.com>
2007-05-09 01:22 ` Re: FW: david@lang.hm
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Orhan Aglagul @ 2007-05-09 01:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
No, it is one transaction per insert.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe@g2switchworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:38 PM
To: Orhan Aglagul
Subject: RE: [PERFORM]
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 19:36, Orhan Aglagul wrote:
> But 10,000 records in 65 sec comes to ~153 records per second. On a
dual
> 3.06 Xeon....
> What range is acceptable?
If you're doing that in one big transaction, that's horrible. Because
it shouldn't be waiting for each insert to fsync, but the whole
transaction.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: FW:
2007-05-09 01:14 FW: Orhan Aglagul <oaglagul@cittio.com>
@ 2007-05-09 01:22 ` david@lang.hm
2007-05-09 11:36 ` Re: FW: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: david@lang.hm @ 2007-05-09 01:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Orhan Aglagul <oaglagul@cittio.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Orhan Aglagul wrote:
> No, it is one transaction per insert.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe@g2switchworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:38 PM
> To: Orhan Aglagul
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM]
>
> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 19:36, Orhan Aglagul wrote:
>> But 10,000 records in 65 sec comes to ~153 records per second. On a
> dual
>> 3.06 Xeon....
>> What range is acceptable?
>
> If you're doing that in one big transaction, that's horrible. Because
> it shouldn't be waiting for each insert to fsync, but the whole
> transaction.
with a standard 7200 rpm drive ~150 transactions/sec sounds about right
to really speed things up you want to get a disk controller with a battery
backed cache so that the writes don't need to hit the disk to be safe.
that should get your speeds up to (and possibly above) what you got by
turning fsync off.
David Lang
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: FW:
2007-05-09 01:14 FW: Orhan Aglagul <oaglagul@cittio.com>
2007-05-09 01:22 ` Re: FW: david@lang.hm
@ 2007-05-09 11:36 ` Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Stark @ 2007-05-09 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david@lang.hm; +Cc: Orhan Aglagul <oaglagul@cittio.com>; pgsql-performance
<david@lang.hm> writes:
> with a standard 7200 rpm drive ~150 transactions/sec sounds about right
>
> to really speed things up you want to get a disk controller with a battery
> backed cache so that the writes don't need to hit the disk to be safe.
Note that this is only if you're counting transactions/sec in a single
session. You can get much more if you have many sessions since they can all
commit together in a single disk i/o.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-05-09 11:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-05-09 01:14 FW: Orhan Aglagul <oaglagul@cittio.com>
2007-05-09 01:22 ` Re: FW: david@lang.hm
2007-05-09 11:36 ` Re: FW: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
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