From: | Strahinja Kustudić <strahinjak(at)nordeus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Burgholzer <rburghol(at)vt(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: INSERT performance tuning experiences |
Date: | 2013-11-22 20:28:09 |
Message-ID: | CADKbJJVxLqw5v=urHat5GHn4L00NWC8kBzW+9RhVGMB5LS_jtw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
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
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Strahinja Kustudić | 2013-11-22 20:34:30 | Re: Partial Index Creation |
Previous Message | Armand du Plessis | 2013-11-22 15:55:44 | Partial Index Creation |