Re: COPY into table too slow with index: now an I/O

From: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Rick Schumeyer" <rschumeyer(at)ieee(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COPY into table too slow with index: now an I/O
Date: 2005-12-02 05:15:57
Message-ID: 3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D01C48EFB@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom,

> That analysis is far too simplistic, because only the WAL
> write has to happen before the transaction can commit. The
> table and index writes will normally happen at some later
> point in the bgwriter, and with any luck there will only need
> to be one write per page, not per tuple.

That's good to know - makes sense. I suppose we might still thrash over
a 1GB range in seeks if the BG writer starts running at full rate in the
background, right? Or is there some write combining in the BG writer?

> It is true that having WAL and data on the same spindle is
> bad news, because the disk head has to divide its time
> between synchronous WAL writes and asynchronous writes of the
> rest of the files.

That sounds right - could be tested by him turning fsync off, or by
moving the WAL to a different spindle (note I'm not advocating running
in production with fsync off).

- Luke

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luke Lonergan 2005-12-02 06:11:53 Re: Database restore speed
Previous Message Craig A. James 2005-12-02 03:47:30 Re: 15,000 tables