""Merlin Moncure"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Running from remote, Time progression is:
> First 50k: 20 sec
> Second : 29 sec
> [...]
> final: : 66 sec
>
This may due to the maintainence cost of a big transaction, I am not sure
... Tom?
Advertising
> so, clear upward progression of time/rec. Initial time is 2.5k
> inserts/sec which is decent but not great for such a narrow table. CPU
> time on server starts around 50% and drops in exact proportion to insert
> performance. My earlier gprof test also suggest there is no smoking gun
> sucking down all the cpu time.
>
Not to 100%, so this means the server is always starving. It is waiting on
something -- of couse not lock. That's why I think there is some problem on
network communication. Another suspect will be the write - I knwo NTFS
system will issue an internal log when extending a file. To remove the
second suspect, I will try to hack the source to do a "fake" write ...
Regards,
Qingqing
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
