I agree that the discs are probably very busy. I do have 2 disks but they are for redundancy. Would it help to put the data, indexes and xlog on separate disk partitions? I'll try adding more threads to update the table as you suggest.
----- Original Message ---- From: Matthew Wakeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:10:38 AM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert/update tps slow with indices on table > 1M rows On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, andrew klassen wrote: > I am using multiple threads, but only one worker thread for insert/updated to > this table. > I don't mind trying to add multiple threads for this table, but my guess is > it would not > help because basically the overall tps rate is decreasing so dramatically. > Since > the cpu time consumed by the corresponding postgres server process for my > thread is > small it does not seem to be the bottleneck. There has to be a bottleneck > somewhere else. > Do you agree or is there some flaw in my reasoning? There is indeed a flaw in your reasoning - there may be very little CPU time consumed, but that just indicates that the discs are busy. Getting Postgres to do multiple things at once will cause a more efficient use of the disc subsystem, resulting in greater overall throughput. This is especially the case if you have multiple discs in your box. Matthew -- Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be very selective about who its friends are. -- Kyle Hearn -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
