On Apr 4, 2005 12:23 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christopher Petrilli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Apr 4, 2005 11:52 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Could we see the *exact* SQL definitions of the table and indexes?
> > Of course, this is a bit cleansed, since it's an internal project, but
> > only the column names are changed:
> Thanks. No smoking gun in sight there. But out of curiosity, can you
> do a test run with *no* indexes on the table, just to see if it behaves
> any differently? Basically I was wondering if index overhead might be
> part of the problem.
Running now, but it'll take a while since I have a 3/4 second pause
after each COPY to better reflect "real world" ... the application
does 1 COPY per second, or whenever it hits 1000 entries. This seemed
to be a sane way to deal with it, and not burden the system with
needless index balancing, etc.
> Also, the X-axis on your graphs seems to be total number of rows
> inserted ... can you relate that to elapsed real time for us?
Sure, like I said, there's a 3/4 second sleep between each COPY,
regardless of how long it took (which well, isn't quite right, but
close enough for this test). I've created a PNG with the X axies
reflecting "elapsed time":
In addition, I've put up the raw data I used:
The columns are rowcount, elapsed time, instance time.
Hopefully this might help some? This machine has nothing else running
on it other than the normal stripped down background processes (like
| Christopher Petrilli
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?