Stephen Frost wrote:
> You're re-hashing things I've already said. The big win is batching the
> inserts, however that's done, into fewer transactions. Sure, multi-row
> inserts could be used to do that, but so could dropping begin/commits in
> right now which probably takes even less effort.
Well, I think you are seriously underestimating the cost of the
to all the other effects (possibly bar the commits). When I tested the
technique on SQLServer and Sybase I got measurable improvements going from
100 row statements to 200 row statements, though I suspect in that case the
per-statement overheads are quite high. I expected improvements from 10
row batches, but it carried on getting better for a long time after
Sybase parser runs out of workspace first.
> No, as was pointed out previously already, you really just need 2. A
And I'm disagreeing with that. Single row is a given, but I think
you'll find it pays to have one
round trip if at all possible and invoking multiple prepared statements
can work against this.
> see if there's really much of a performance difference between a
> 50-insert prepared statement, and 50 1-insert prepared statements. If
> they're both done in larger transactions, I don't know that there's
> really alot of performance difference.
I think you'll be surprised, but the only way is to test it. And also
the simple 50 row single
insert as text. See if you can measure the difference between that and
> storage overhead? indexing overhead? We're talking about prepared
> statements here, what additional storage requirement do you think those
> would impose? What additional indexing overhead? I don't believe we
> actually do anything differently between prepared statements and
> multi-row inserts that would change either of those.
That's my point. You will brickwall on the actual database operations
early enough that the efficiency difference between parse-and-execute
statements will be hard to measure - at least if you have multi-row
But this really needs testing and timing.
> Ah, latency is a reasonable thing to bring up. Of course, if you want
> to talk about latency then you get to consider that multi-insert SQL
> will inherently have larger packet sizes which could cause them to be
> delayed in some QoS arrangements.
No, I mean latency from round trips from the client to the server
process. I don't know why
you think I'd mean that.
> As I said, most of this is a re-hash of things already said. The
> low-hanging fruit here is doing multiple inserts inside of a
> transaction, rather than 1 insert per transaction. Regardless of how
> that's done, it's going to give the best bang-for-buck. It will
> complicate the client code some, regardless of how it's implemented, so
> that failures are handled gracefully (if that's something you care about
> anyway), but as there exists some queueing mechanisms in rsyslog
> already, hopefully it won't be too bad.
I think you have largely missed the point. There are two things here:
1) how many rows per commit
2) how many rows per logical RPC (ie round trip) between the client
and server processes
We are agreed that the first is a Very Big Deal, but you seem resistant to
the idea that the second of these is a big deal once you've dealt with
My experience has been that its much more important than any benefits of
preparing statements etc, particularly if the use of a prepared
make it harder to do multi-row RPCs because the protocol doesn't
allow pipelining (at least without things getting very hairy).
Clearly 'copy' is your friend for this too, at least potentially (even
if it means
streaming to a staging table).
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Glenn Maynard||Date: 2009-04-22 21:04:43|
|Subject: Re: performance for high-volume log insertion|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-04-22 20:49:09|
|Subject: Re: performance for high-volume log insertion |