Re: INSERT performance tuning experiences

I was testing it on an SSD :D

Regards,
Strahinja

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Robert Burgholzer <rburghol(at)vt(dot)edu> wrote:

> By the way, my machine clearly sucks compared to yours! I was pretty
> stoked to get 8,000 in 7 seconds. :)
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Strahinja Kustudić <
> strahinjak(at)nordeus(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> So you got better insert performance by turning on synchronous_commit?
>> How is that possible? Shouldn't synchronous_commit=off increase
>> performance? Is this only the case with 8.3?
>>
>> I tried inserting 10k rows in a table with more than 50 columns with and
>> without synchronous_commit and the results were (Postgres 9.1):
>>
>> off: 1.989s
>> on: 2.928s
>>
>> So off is 2 times faster.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Strahinja
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Robert Burgholzer <rburghol(at)vt(dot)edu>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the response Simon. This is a perfect application of that
>>> function, I have a distributed environmental modeling system that generates
>>> Gigs and Gigs of time series data, most of which is "write-once
>>> read-seldom", and thus not worth the overhead of perpetual storage in the
>>> database, or stored in a remote modeling node (also not worth network or
>>> storage traffic for synching nodes). Similarly, since the tables all come
>>> from text files, there is virtually no penalty to accepting the risk of pg
>>> failure during table loading.
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> /r/b
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Robert W. Burgholzer
> 'Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated
> simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.' - Charles Mingus
> Athletics: http://athleticalgorithm.wordpress.com/
> Science: http://robertwb.wordpress.com/
> Wine: http://reesvineyard.wordpress.com/
>