Re: Performance issue
От | Joseph Bove |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance issue |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5.1.0.14.2.20030924130825.035a7438@mail.vetstar.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Performance issue (peter <pmcgregor@advso.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance issue
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Peter, One possibility is to drop all the indexes, do the insert and re-add the indexes. The more indexes that exist and the more rows that exist, the more costly the insert. Regards, Joseph At 05:48 PM 9/24/2003 +1200, peter wrote: >Hello, > >I have been trying to get my Postgres database to do faster inserts. > >The environment is basically a single user situation. > >The part that I would like to speed up is when a User copys a Project. >A Project consists of a number of Rooms(say 60). Each room contains a >number of items. >A project will contain say 20,000 records. > >Anyway the copying process gets slower and slower, as more projects are >added to the database. > >My statistics(Athlon 1.8Ghz) >---------------- >20,000 items Takes on average 0.078seconds/room >385,000 items Takes on average .11seconds/room >690,000 items takes on average .270seconds/room >1,028,000 items Takes on average .475seconds/room > >As can be seen the time taken to process each room increases. A commit >occurs when a room has been copied. >The hard drive is not being driven very hard. The hard drive light only >flashes about twice a second when there are a million records in the database. > >I thought that the problem could have been my plpgsql procedure because I >assume the code is interpreted. >However I have just rewriten the code using straight sql(with some temp >fields), >and the times turn out to be almost exactly the same as the plpgsql version. > >The read speed for the Application is fine. The sql planner seems to be >doing a good job. There has been only one problem >that I have found with one huge select, which was fixed by a cross join. > > I am running Red hat 8. Some of my conf entries that I have changed follow >shared_buffers = 3700 >effective_cache_size = 4000 >sort_mem = 32168 > >Are the increasing times reasonable? >The times themselves might look slow, but thats because there are a number >of tables involved in a Copy > >I can increase the shared buffer sizes above 32M, but would this really help? > >TIA > >peter Mcgregor > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: