Javier de la Torre wrote:
> Yes,
>
> Thanks. I am doing this now...
>
> Is definetly faster, but I will also discover now if there is a limit
> in a transaction side... I am going to try to insert into one single
> transaction 60 million records in a table.
>
> In any case I still don't understand how why PostgreSQL was not taking
> resources before without the transaction. If it has to create a
> transaction per insert I understand it will have to do more things,
> but why is not taking all resources from the machine? I mean, why is
> it only taking 3% of them.
>
I'll bet your WAL disk is mostly WAIT-I/O, waiting for the WAL log
flushes at end of transaction.
LER
--
Larry Rosenman
Database Support Engineer
PERVASIVE SOFTWARE. INC.
12365B RIATA TRACE PKWY
3015
AUSTIN TX 78727-6531
Tel: 512.231.6173
Fax: 512.231.6597
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.pervasive.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
