Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle

yes this is a very clearly visible problem.
The difference b/w oracle and PG increases with more rows.
when oracle takes 3 GB, PG takes around 6 GB.
I only use varchar.
I will try to use your tips on "smart table layout, toast compression".
Assuming these suggested options do not have any performance penalty?

Best Regards,
Divakar

________________________________
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>; Mladen Gogala
<mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Wed, October 27, 2010 11:36:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres insert performance and storage requirement
compared to Oracle

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Thanks for your inputs on the insert performance part.
> Any suggestion on storage requirement?
> VACUUM is certainly not an option, because this is something related to
> maintenance AFTER insertion.
> I am talking about the plain storage requirement w.r. to Oracle, which I
> observed is twice of Oracle in case millions of rows are inserted.
> Anybody who tried to analyze the average storage requirement of PG w.r. to
> Oracle?

There isn't much you can to about storage use other than avoid stupid
things (like using char() vs varchar()), smart table layout, toast
compression, etc. Are you sure this is a problem?

merlin