On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:53:09PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> John Rouillard wrote:
> >We are running postgresql-8.1.3 under Centos 4
> You should upgrade, at least to the latest minor release of the 8.1
> series (8.1.11), as there has been a bunch of important bug and security
> fixes. Or even better, upgrade to 8.3, which has reduced the storage
> size of especially variable length datatypes like text/char/varchar in
> particular. As your COPY is I/O bound, reducing storage size will
> translate directly to improved performance.
Yup. Just saw that suggestion in an unrelated email.
> >dm-6 is where the data files reside and dm-4 is where the WAL archives
> >are kept. Note all the DM's are on the same RAID 0 device /dev/sda2.
> Another reason to upgrade to 8.3: if you CREATE or TRUNCATE the table in
> the same transaction as you COPY into it, you can avoid WAL logging of
> the loaded data, which will in the best case double your performance as
> your WAL is on the same physical drives as the data files.
We can't do this as we are backfilling a couple of months of data into
tables with existing data.
> >The only indexes we have to drop are the ones on the primary keys
> >(there is one non-primary key index in the database as well).
> >Can you drop an index on the primary key for a table and add it back
> >later? Am I correct in saying: the primary key index is what enforces
> >the unique constraint in the table? If the index is dropped and
> >non-unique primary key data has been added, what happens when you
> >re-add the index?
> Yes, the index is what enforces the uniqueness. You can drop the primary
> key constraint, and add it back after the load with ALTER TABLE. If the
> load introduces any non-unique primary keys, adding the primary key
> constraint will give you an error and fail.
That's the part I am worried about. I guess using psql to delete the
problem row then re-adding the index will work.
> Dropping and recreating the indexes is certainly worth trying.
Thanks for the info.
603-643-9300 x 111
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2008-04-28 18:16:02|
|Subject: Re: Very poor performance loading 100M of sql data using
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2008-04-28 17:53:09|
|Subject: Re: Very poor performance loading 100M of sql data using copy|