Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97709FB2C3
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:47:22 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 22911-06 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:47:19 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com (nz-out-0102.google.com
 [64.233.162.199])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269939FB215
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:47:07 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id i11so746483nzi
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=ZhmQ17w6a53h+ISgKahhcAzwEzyIsyz9Y823xZJDqolcTvXlqiH6bruKLGqzcovE9pfTVNa95k4CxClQHInX6NRBGcz8LEPuUI/6pC1D569bkXO0Gwjx4U4oLBZNi92xCcxYCIgQgRIgAilecEjggFc7kBfxIAMWryw7vV9038c=
Received: by 10.35.119.8 with SMTP id w8mr693014pym;
	Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.35.49.10 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ce4072df0610272047w4fdf36dfj130b0e9171374d3a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:47:06 -0400
From: "Worky Workerson" <worky.workerson@gmail.com>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Best COPY Performance
Cc: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>,
 pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <b42b73150610272012w45cd097amd16fe11cebb195fe@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ce4072df0610271208y4621da42j380d2f92330af213@mail.gmail.com>
	<C167F9CE.55A8%llonergan@greenplum.com>
	<b42b73150610272012w45cd097amd16fe11cebb195fe@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.271 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200610/591
X-Sequence-Number: 21720

On 10/27/06, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > r b   swpd  free   buff    cache si so bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
> > > 1 0 345732 29328 770980 12947212  0  0 20 16552 1223 3677 12  2 85  1
> > > 1 0 345732 29840 770520 12946924  0  0 20 29244 1283 2955 11  2 85  1
> > > 1 0 345732 32144 770560 12944436  0  0 12 16436 1204 2936 11  2 86  1
> > > 1 0 345732 33744 770464 12942764  0  0 20 16460 1189 2005 10  2 86  1
> > > 2 0 345732 32656 770140 12943972  0  0 16  7068 1057 3434 13  2 85  0
> > > 1 0 345732 34832 770184 12941820  0  0 20  9368 1170 3120 11  2 86  1
> > > 1 0 345732 36528 770228 12939804  0  0 16 32668 1297 2109 11  2 85  1
> > > 1 0 345732 29304 770272 12946764  0  0 16 16428 1192 3105 12  2 85  1
> > > 1 0 345732 30840 770060 12945480  0  0 20 16456 1196 3151 12  2 84  1
> > > 1 0 345732 32760 769972 12943528  0  0 12 16460 1185 3103 11  2 86  1
> >
> > It doesn't look like there's anything else running - the runnable "r" is
> > about 1.  Your "bo" blocks output rate is about 16MB/s, so divide by 3 and
> > you're about in range with your 5MB/s COPY rate.  The interesting thing is
> > that the I/O wait is pretty low.
> >
> > How many CPUs on the machine?  Can you send the result of "cat
> > /proc/cpuinfo"?
>
> iirc, he is running quad opteron 885 (8 cores), so if my math is
> correct he can split up his process for an easy gain.

Are you saying that I should be able to issue multiple COPY commands
because my I/O wait is low?  I was under the impression that I am I/O
bound, so multiple simeoultaneous loads would have a detrimental
effect ...