From: | Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: more anti-postgresql FUD |
Date: | 2006-10-13 15:48:50 |
Message-ID: | slrneivdb2.27so.andrew+nonews@atlantis.supernews.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 2006-10-13, Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> wrote:
> Makes sense. However, in this case I was batching updates in
> transactions and committing each txn at 1 second intervals, all on a
> single connection. In other words, the bottleneck illustrated by this
> test should not be related to fsyncs, and this does not seem to
> explain the huge discrepancy between update (1,000/sec) and insert
> (9,000 inserts/sec, also in 1-sec txns) performance.
Update has to locate the one live row version amongst all the dead ones;
insert doesn't need to bother.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Harpreet Dhaliwal | 2006-10-13 15:51:06 | Server Added Y'day. Missing Today |
Previous Message | John D. Burger | 2006-10-13 15:47:05 | Re: A query planner that learns |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-13 16:02:02 | Re: [HACKERS] array_accum aggregate |
Previous Message | Alexander Staubo | 2006-10-13 15:43:33 | Re: more anti-postgresql FUD |