Quoting Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A friend of mine has an application where he's copying in 4000 rows at a > > time into a table that has about 4M rows. Each row is 40-50 bytes. This > > is taking 25 seconds on a dual PIII-1GHz with 1G of RAM and a 2 disk > > SATA mirror, running FBSD 4.10-stable. There's one index on the table. > > If there's no hidden costs such as foreign key checks, that does seem > pretty dang slow. > > > What's really odd is that neither the CPU or the disk are being > > hammered. The box appears to be pretty idle; the postgresql proces is > > using 4-5% CPU. -- This sounds EXACTLY like my problem, if you make the box to a Xeon 2.4GHz, 2GB RAM ... with two SCSI drives (xlog and base); loading 10K rows of about 200 bytes each; takes about 20 secs at the best, and much longer at the worst. By any chance does your friend have several client machines/processes trying to mass-load rows at the same time? Or at least some other processes updating that table in a bulkish way? What I get is low diskio, low cpu, even low context-switches ... and I'm betting he should take a look at pg_locks. For my own problem, I gather that an exclusive lock is necessary while updating indexes and heap, and the multiple processes doing the update can make that pathological. Anyway, have your friend check pg_locks. "Dreams come true, not free." -- S.Sondheim, ITW
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
