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": http://www.amber.org/~petrilli/diagrams/pgsql_copyperf_timeline.png In addition, I've put up the raw data I used: http://www.amber.org/~petrilli/diagrams/results_timeline.txt 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 sshd). -- | Christopher Petrilli | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
