Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
---|
From: | Rolf Lüttecke <rluettecke(at)gcd(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Slow down on Import |
Date: | 2000-01-12 16:45:05 |
Message-ID: | 009201bf5d1c$60bf9920$8104a8c0@gcdw4129.gcd.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Hi folks,
first some techn. data: SNI-Primergy w/ PII-333, 128Meg and
SCSI-devices, Linux 2.0.36
The following strange behaviour comes up since upgrading to
version 6.5.3 + FreeFile-Patch (hi Tom):
When re-importing a dumped database the job is normally done
in roundabout 8 seconds. When you drop the database and
repeat the step a few times, the speed slows down to at least
1.5 minutes.
Example:
# for i in 1 2 3 4 5
# do
# destroydb xyz
# createdb xyz
# time psql xyz < ./import.db (small table / 10.000 rows)
# (output from time: 8.2 seconds up to 1.5 minutes)
# done
There is no additional load on that machine. The main application
(MS-Access w/ ODBC xx.0006) seems sleeping during database-
search - so we tried to figure out the problem and made at least
the above test directly on that machine. Last hint: A complete
copy from "/opt/pgsql" transferred to a another machine shows
the same problem.
What´s wrong? Any ideas?
Regards
-Rolf
From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rolf Lüttecke <rluettecke(at)gcd(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] Slow down on Import |
Date: | 2000-01-16 05:24:45 |
Message-ID: | 18559.948000285@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rolf_L=FCttecke?=" <rluettecke(at)gcd(dot)de> writes:
> # for i in 1 2 3 4 5
> # do
> # destroydb xyz
> # createdb xyz
> # time psql xyz < ./import.db (small table / 10.000 rows)
> # (output from time: 8.2 seconds up to 1.5 minutes)
> # done
Hmm. I tried to reproduce this behavior, but didn't see it on either
6.5.* or current sources. Does anyone else see it?
regards, tom lane