X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB6AD8C58 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:24:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17953-04 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:24:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from boutiquenumerique.com (boutiquenumerique.com [82.67.9.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA56D8C4C for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:24:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 3939 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2005 23:25:05 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (boutiquenumerique-lists@192.168.0.4) by boutiquenumerique.com with SMTP; 12 Sep 2005 23:25:05 +0200 To: blblack@gmail.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance considerations for very heavy INSERT traffic References: <84621a6050912140464c380c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:24:24 +0200 From: PFC Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?La_Boutique_Num=E9rique?= Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <84621a6050912140464c380c3@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.0 (Linux, build 1095) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/147 X-Sequence-Number: 14455 > I know I haven't provided a whole lot of application-level detail here, You did ! What about : - using COPY instead of INSERT ? (should be easy to do from the aggregators) - using Bizgres ? (which was designed for your use case) - splitting the xlog and the data on distinct physical drives or arrays - benchmarking something else than ext3 (xfs ? reiser3 ?)