Thanks for your input! On Do, 2015-09-17 at 11:21 -0300, Matheus de Oliveira wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Eildert Groeneveld < > eildert.groenev...@fli.bund.de> wrote: > > > * one COPY per bulk (20 000 rows) > > copy does not fit so well, as it is not only initial populating. > > > Why do you say COPY doesn't fit? It seems to me that COPY fits > perfectly for your case, and would certainly make the load faster. well, more than one table needs to get populated and data is not really available in one file.
> I suspect (not sure though) that the degradation is most because you are > inserting one row at a time, and, it needs to verify FSM (Free Space Map) for > each tuple inserted, when the table start to get more populated, this > verification starts to become slower. If that is really the case, COPY would > certainly improve that, or even INSERT with many rows at once. allright, sounds reasonable. But what is your experience: is it possible that inserting the first 20000 records takes 29 seconds while inserting lot 20 (i.e. 9*20000 later) takes 186.9 sec? after all we are talking only about 200000 records? That take 6 times longer!! odd, anyone has an idea? greetings Eildert > > Regards,> -- > Matheus de Oliveira> > > > -- Eildert Groeneveld =================================================== Institute of Farm Animal Genetics (FLI) Mariensee 31535 Neustadt Germany Tel : (+49)(0)5034 871155 Fax : (+49)(0)5034 871143 e-mail: eildert.groenev...@fli.bund.de web: http://vce.tzv.fal.de ==================================================
