| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |