On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I was just testing the threaded ecpg, and ran some performance tests.
> > > Without using threads, I am seeing 100,000 inserts of a single word into
> > > a simple table take 12 seconds:
> > > CREATE TABLE test_thread(message TEXT);
> > > giving me 8333 inserts per second. That seems very high.
> >
> > Single transaction, or one transaction per INSERT?
>
> This is ecpg, and I didn't have AUTOCOMMIT on, so it was a single
> transaction. I had forgotten that.
>
> Also, I was wrong in my computations. It is 4166 inserts per second,
> not 8333. Sorry.
>
> I am now seeing more reasonable numbers:
>
> one INSERT per transaction, fsync true 934
> one INSERT per transaction, fsync false 1818
> one INSERT per transaction, fsync true 4166
Shouldn't 1 and 3 be about the same though? If both are 'one INSERT per
transaction with fsync true', how come such a massive difference in #s?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: 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
