Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date: 2010-10-27 18:06:00
Message-ID: AANLkTik1Acnzpm62XgHADZtZ0sgkxSo=43jKrX7+N_f1@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Thanks for your inputs on the insert performance part.
> Any suggestion on storage requirement?
> VACUUM is certainly not an option, because this is something related to
> maintenance AFTER insertion.
> I am talking about the plain storage requirement w.r. to Oracle, which I
> observed is twice of Oracle in case millions of rows are inserted.
> Anybody who tried to analyze the average storage requirement of PG w.r. to
> Oracle?

There isn't much you can to about storage use other than avoid stupid
things (like using char() vs varchar()), smart table layout, toast
compression, etc.  Are you sure this is a problem?

merlin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mladen GogalaDate: 2010-10-27 18:06:53
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-10-27 18:03:36
Subject: Re: CPUs for new databases

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mladen GogalaDate: 2010-10-27 18:06:53
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-10-27 18:04:54
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group