Re: Sequence Question DOH!

From: Oscar Tuscon <obtuse(at)bmwe30(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sequence Question DOH!
Date: 2004-08-05 20:22:13
Message-ID: 20040805202213.E9E8A725E@sitemail.everyone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Not sure how I managed to interchange Greg's reply and my response, but here's mine again:

Thanks, I figured that, but was hoping otherwise. I realize that the timing would make it unlikely, but unfortunately I need 100% guaranteed. I have an alternative in that I control the accessing clients (my app) and can apply a lock to prevent it from happening.

I found the average select nextval() call was taking 2ms, which seems a bit slow to me. Throw in the fsync I suppose and that'd explain it.
Interestingly, in the tests I ran the minimum select nextval() was 400us, and the max was 35ms, with an average of 2ms. This was on a DL380 dual 2.4G processors, 2.5G RAM, 5x10k SCSI drives, and no load - pretty much idle (well, a processes checking for entries in a command table 10 times per second).

Oscar

_____________________________________________________________
The BMW E30 community on the web---> http://www.bmwe30.net

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2004-08-05 20:39:01 Re: trash talk
Previous Message ruben 2004-08-05 20:21:09 Slow after VACUUM, fast after DROP-CREATE INDEX