On 2006-10-13, Alexander Staubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
