From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Spiegelberg, Greg" <gspiegelberg(at)cranel(dot)com>, "Worky Workerson" <worky(dot)workerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Best COPY Performance |
Date: | 2006-10-30 14:23:07 |
Message-ID: | C16B58DB.56EC%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg,
On 10/30/06 7:09 AM, "Spiegelberg, Greg" <gspiegelberg(at)cranel(dot)com> wrote:
> I broke that file into 2 files each of 550K rows and performed 2
> simultaneous COPY's after dropping the table, recreating, issuing a sync
> on the system to be sure, &c and nearly every time both COPY's finish in
> 12 seconds. About a 20% gain to ~91K rows/second.
>
> Admittedly, this was a pretty rough test but a 20% savings, if it can be
> put into production, is worth exploring for us.
Did you see whether you were I/O or CPU bound in your single threaded COPY?
A 10 second "vmstat 1" snapshot would tell you/us.
With Mr. Workerson (:-) I'm thinking his benefit might be a lot better
because the bottleneck is the CPU and it *may* be the time spent in the
index building bits.
We've found that there is an ultimate bottleneck at about 12-14MB/s despite
having sequential write to disk speeds of 100s of MB/s. I forget what the
latest bottleneck was.
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mattias Kregert | 2006-10-30 14:26:09 | Re: Strange plan in pg 8.1.0 |
Previous Message | Spiegelberg, Greg | 2006-10-30 14:09:32 | Re: Best COPY Performance |