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                        |
  [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

Reply via email to