From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kelly Burkhart <kelly(at)tradebotsystems(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.x index insert performance |
Date: | 2005-11-11 23:02:11 |
Message-ID: | 22258.1131750131@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Kelly Burkhart <kelly(at)tradebotsystems(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 19:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kelly, could there be any patterns in the data that might be
>> related?
> I modified my original program to insert generated, sequential data.
> The following graph shows the results to be flat:
> <http://kkcsm.net/pgcpy_20051111_1.jpg>
> Thus, hardware is sufficient to handle predictably sequential data.
Yeah, inserting sequentially increasing data would only ever touch the
right-hand edge of the btree, so memory requirements would be pretty low
and constant.
> There very well could be a pattern in the data which could affect
> things, however, I'm not sure how to identify it in 100K rows out of
> 100M.
I conjecture that the problem areas represent places where the key
sequence is significantly "more random" than it is elsewhere. Hard
to be more specific than that though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2005-11-12 09:14:49 | Re: slow queries after ANALYZE |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-11-11 22:58:17 | Re: 8.x index insert performance |