| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh(at)mecomb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, PostgreSQL Developers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Postgres INSERTs much slower than MySQL? |
| Date: | 1999-10-26 00:59:49 |
| Message-ID: | 199910260059.JAA07248@ext16.sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> WAL is Write Ahead Log, transaction logging.
> This will reduce # of fsyncs (among other things) Postgres has
> to perform now.
> Test above took near 38 min without -F flag and 24 min
> with -F (no fsync at all).
> With WAL the same test without -F will be near as fast as with
> -F now.
This sounds impressive. So I did some testings with my pgbench to see
how WAL improves the performance without -F using current.
100000 records insertation + vacuum took 1:02 with -F (4:10 without -F)
TPC-B like transactions(mix of insert/update/select) per second:
21 (with -F)
3 (without -F)
I couldn't see any improvement against 6.5.2 so far. Maybe some part
of WAL is not yet committed to current?
---
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 1999-10-26 01:07:51 | Re: [GENERAL] current_timestamp and default now() |
| Previous Message | Courtney Thomas | 1999-10-26 00:21:49 | Re: [GENERAL] initdb error->ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libpq.so.2" not found^H |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-10-26 01:01:05 | Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Industrial-strength logging |
| Previous Message | Tim Holloway | 1999-10-26 00:01:15 | Logging - pg_options format change? |