| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Blanch Bataller <daniel(dot)blanch(dot)bataller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | ROBERT PRICE <rprice504(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Insert Concurrency |
| Date: | 2017-04-18 15:29:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpZqt3YXNgaPHpweGzH20-9LYq=KtRmV0RDkwgtBZCg4RQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Daniel Blanch Bataller
<daniel(dot)blanch(dot)bataller(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> But if you are going to move a record at a time you are going to be limited
> by the fastest transaction rate you can achieve, which is going to be a few
> hundred per second, and limited at the end by the disk hardware you have, .
> Out of the box and on commodity hardware it can take you up to then days to
> move 100M records.
RDS usually is not commodity hardware, most RDS instances will have
some form of SSD storage, so performance could be much higher than
what you'd get on your laptop.
I'd have to second David's advice: test with pgbench first. It can
quite accurately simulate your use case.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2017-04-18 15:41:17 | Re: Insert Concurrency |
| Previous Message | Daniel Blanch Bataller | 2017-04-18 05:45:31 | Re: Insert Concurrency |