Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2164E64FD30 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:50:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61638-08 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:50:45 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.228]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F7264FD20 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:50:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1766177rvf.43 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=fGHcMHAi9DX6BiKBBxGryeGjKeOrUV6YSlI2totUT9U=; b=alvSx3dv8CIghAorx+6y1IlNs9+88B0VaOwTYMCgQcwvfnnIrpB53e4HFbne1ovSeS xPnU3Jx4Ba/CWTpjP6nJWKmwsEAPxl1dYqGSc2R/6viRxP5Ay4roOIP4Bd0VfZz3GCWU InbTdvWstx2QOd+r5p55s8np8tqzd3tTSr9Bg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=HvxzC4uIBCP7h6ICq6gRcISI8mR+mEtBtmz3zlqFiYesIRxjj5fnLOwgaY9oEmWr6E LY/w+p/dXyvLotfBgnA8BaDmLG6vT/aZf2IqguQ6oXHreyvpfOWsn24xUku1I0JLliIq xjI3JNxu8hwB/4ndgaNZwwOZdU8VWSYs2aefs= Received: by 10.141.210.13 with SMTP id m13mr1367332rvq.25.1219539048513; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.197.1 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:50:48 -0600 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Loic Petit" Subject: Re: Large number of tables slow insert Cc: max@nts.biz.ua, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <1775c5ea0808231747m71c4e75fn9b5c45ed604edfe8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1775c5ea0808231747m71c4e75fn9b5c45ed604edfe8@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200808/299 X-Sequence-Number: 31180 On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Loic Petit wrote: > I was a bit confused about the read and write sorry ! I understand what you > mean... > But do you think that the IO cost (of only one page) needed to handle the > index writing is superior than 300ms ? Because each insert in any of these > tables is that slow. > NB: between my "small" and my "big" tests the only difference is the number > of table (10 and 3000), there is almost the same amount of on-disk data It could be that the tables or indexes are heavily bloated. What's the churn rate on these tables / indexes?