| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kelly Burkhart <kelly(at)tradebotsystems(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.x index insert performance |
| Date: | 2005-11-11 23:02:11 |
| Message-ID: | 22258.1131750131@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Kelly Burkhart <kelly(at)tradebotsystems(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 19:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kelly, could there be any patterns in the data that might be
>> related?
> I modified my original program to insert generated, sequential data.
> The following graph shows the results to be flat:
> <http://kkcsm.net/pgcpy_20051111_1.jpg>
> Thus, hardware is sufficient to handle predictably sequential data.
Yeah, inserting sequentially increasing data would only ever touch the
right-hand edge of the btree, so memory requirements would be pretty low
and constant.
> There very well could be a pattern in the data which could affect
> things, however, I'm not sure how to identify it in 100K rows out of
> 100M.
I conjecture that the problem areas represent places where the key
sequence is significantly "more random" than it is elsewhere. Hard
to be more specific than that though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2005-11-12 09:14:49 | Re: slow queries after ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-11-11 22:58:17 | Re: 8.x index insert performance |