| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Orhan Aglagul <oaglagul(at)cittio(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FW: |
| Date: | 2007-05-09 01:22:45 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0705081819160.32601@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Orhan Aglagul wrote:
> No, it is one transaction per insert.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:38 PM
> To: Orhan Aglagul
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM]
>
> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 19:36, Orhan Aglagul wrote:
>> But 10,000 records in 65 sec comes to ~153 records per second. On a
> dual
>> 3.06 Xeon....
>> What range is acceptable?
>
> If you're doing that in one big transaction, that's horrible. Because
> it shouldn't be waiting for each insert to fsync, but the whole
> transaction.
with a standard 7200 rpm drive ~150 transactions/sec sounds about right
to really speed things up you want to get a disk controller with a battery
backed cache so that the writes don't need to hit the disk to be safe.
that should get your speeds up to (and possibly above) what you got by
turning fsync off.
David Lang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-05-09 03:31:55 | Re: Best OS for Postgres 8.2 |
| Previous Message | Orhan Aglagul | 2007-05-09 01:14:14 | FW: |