Re: When did we get to be so fast?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: When did we get to be so fast?
Date: 2003-08-07 20:13:35
Message-ID: 319.1060287215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I was just testing the threaded ecpg, and ran some performance tests.
> Without using threads, I am seeing 100,000 inserts of a single word into
> a simple table take 12 seconds:
> CREATE TABLE test_thread(message TEXT);
> giving me 8333 inserts per second. That seems very high.

Single transaction, or one transaction per INSERT?

With the present WAL design, it's not possible for one backend to commit
more than one transaction per disk rotation --- unless fsync is off, or
your disk drive lies about write-complete. Given that you recently
updated your hardware, I'm betting on the last item ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-08-07 20:15:27 Re: new psql \d command
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2003-08-07 20:10:19 Re: Problem building contrib/array in current CVS