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
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 |