Re: [HACKERS] Profile of current backend
От | Vadim B. Mikheev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Profile of current backend |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 34DB33B6.B1631627@sable.krasnoyarsk.su обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Profile of current backend (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Profile of current backend
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote: > > > > Not exactly. But to get my application running we have to do something to > > > speed it up. This morning I started my program on a database with 15165 > > > records in one table and something like 100 in a second plus 2 in a third. > > > Then my software tries to add records to the first table and for each record > > > added it updates a record in the other two. This doesn't count the select > > > etc. > > > > > > Anyway, the data isn't processed fast enough. I tried adding about 600 > > > records which should be done (the time in which the data was send) in 5 > > > minutes, but our system needed almost 8 minutes to insert the data. And this > > > doesn't cause Oracle too much trouble. > > > > > > So I guess there's need for some speed-up. :-) > > > > I (and others) had done some benchmarking on simple inserts (6 months ago?) and > > had concluded that the speed was similar to other commercial systems (I was > > comparing against Ingres). I recall getting ~50TPS. > > > > This was all before Bruce did his work on startup and runtime speeds. You > > really think your performance is that far off? You are doing selects on the big > > table before inserting? Do you have indices set up?? Our results were for > > inserts on a heap table, which has the least overhead... And did you use BEGIN/END ? Auto-commit is ON in postgres... > > Just curious, but do you have -F set to disable fsync()? We > really really should disable that by default :( ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh no! Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: