From: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Marc Cousin <mcousin@sigma.fr>
Subject: Re: insert performance for win32
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:29:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0511040215540.22190@eon.cs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7860.1131062219@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD79B@Herge.rcsinc.local>
<7860.1131062219@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> On Unix I get a dead flat line (within measurement noise), both local
> loopback and across my LAN.
>
> after 50000 30.20 sec
> after 100000 31.67 sec
> after 150000 30.98 sec
> after 200000 29.64 sec
> after 250000 29.83 sec
>
Confirmed in Linux. And on a winxp machine(sp2) with server, client
together, with (see almost no performance difference) or without my "fake"
write, the observation is still hold for both cases:
after 50000 25.21 sec
after 100000 26.26 sec
after 150000 25.23 sec
after 200000 26.25 sec
after 250000 26.58 sec
In both cases, postgres 67% cpu, psql 15~20%, rest: system process. Kernel
time is 40+% -- where from?
Regards,
Qingqing
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: zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com, mcousin@sigma.fr
Subject: Re: insert performance for win32
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0511040215540.22190@eon.cs>
* 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