On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 06:36:41PM +1100, Slavisa Garic wrote:
>
> > Rows Present Start Time Finish Time
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > 100 1068790804.12 1068790804.12
> > 1000 1068790807.87 1068790807.87
> > 5000 1068790839.26 1068790839.27
> > 10000 1068790909.24 1068790909.26
> > 20000 1068791172.82 1068791172.85
> > 30000 1068791664.06 1068791664.09
> > 40000 1068792369.94 1068792370.0
> > 50000 1068793317.53 1068793317.6
> > 60000 1068794369.38 1068794369.47
>
> > [too slow]
>
> Ok, so inserting 60000 rows seems to take 0.09 seconds, and inserting
> 5000 takes only 0.01. And your problem is exactly what?
You didn't understand the question. Inserting ONE ROW when there are already
5000 ROWS present takes 0.01 seconds. Inserting ONE ROW when there are
already 60000 ROWS present takes 0.09 secods. In other words in takes
about 9 times more time to insert ONE ROW when there is a larger set of
data already in the database. As my experiments will grow and more data
will be inserted this is getting to take too long. Inserting 70000 rows
takes about just over an hour. INserting 5000 takes about minute and an
half.
I don't know if this the behaviour to be expected so that is why i posted
the question and that is my problem. I also wanted to know what can be
done to improve this if it can be,
Regards,
Slavisa
> --
> Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
> "Coge la flor que hoy nace alegre, ufana. ¿Quién sabe si nacera otra mañana?"
>
---------------------------(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
