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
