From: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: insert performance for win32 |
Date: | 2005-11-03 21:46:52 |
Message-ID: | dke0ft$i6$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
""Merlin Moncure"" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> 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?
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Drake | 2005-11-03 22:35:13 | Encoding on 8.0.4 |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-11-03 21:15:31 | Re: insert performance for win32 |