From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: When did we get to be so fast? |
Date: | 2003-08-07 23:49:40 |
Message-ID: | 20030807204851.G11591@hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > I was just testing the threaded ecpg, and ran some performance tests.
> > > Without using threads, I am seeing 100,000 inserts of a single word into
> > > a simple table take 12 seconds:
> > > CREATE TABLE test_thread(message TEXT);
> > > giving me 8333 inserts per second. That seems very high.
> >
> > Single transaction, or one transaction per INSERT?
>
> This is ecpg, and I didn't have AUTOCOMMIT on, so it was a single
> transaction. I had forgotten that.
>
> Also, I was wrong in my computations. It is 4166 inserts per second,
> not 8333. Sorry.
>
> I am now seeing more reasonable numbers:
>
> one INSERT per transaction, fsync true 934
> one INSERT per transaction, fsync false 1818
> one INSERT per transaction, fsync true 4166
Shouldn't 1 and 3 be about the same though? If both are 'one INSERT per
transaction with fsync true', how come such a massive difference in #s?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-08-07 23:50:21 | Re: build on unixware 713 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-08-07 23:45:47 | Re: regression test failure |