Nobody has asked what kind of machine this is ??? Hard disks, memory, etc.
What are your relevant settings in postgresql.conf ? Shared buffers, checkpoints, etc. Also how big are the inserts ? What else is this machine doing ? Is it bare hardware, or a VM ? Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca On 17 September 2015 at 10:41, Eildert Groeneveld < eildert.groenev...@fli.bund.de> wrote: > 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 > ================================================== > >