Nitpicking -- Perhaps the 4th data line is meant to be: Inserts in separate transactions 2500 inserts/second ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??
Greg Williamson -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 9/9/2003 8:25 PM To: Matt Clark Cc: Ron Johnson; PgSQL Performance ML Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load Matt Clark wrote: > > Just a data point, but on my Dual Xeon 2.4Gig machine with a 10k SCSI > > drive I can do 4k inserts/second if I turn fsync off. If you have a > > battery-backed controller, you should be able to do the same. (You will > > not need to turn fsync off --- fsync will just be fast because of the > > disk drive RAM). > > > > Am I missing something? > > I think Ron asked this, but I will too, is that 4k inserts in > one transaction or 4k transactions each with one insert? > > fsync is very much faster (as are all random writes) with the > write-back cache, but I'd hazard a guess that it's still not > nearly as fast as turning fsync off altogether. I'll do a test > perhaps... Sorry to be replying late. Here is what I found. fsync on Inserts all in one transaction 3700 inserts/second Inserts in separate transactions 870 inserts/second fsync off Inserts all in one transaction 3700 inserts/second Inserts all in one transaction 2500 inserts/second ECPG test program attached. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings