Re: Best COPY Performance

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Spiegelberg, Greg" <gspiegelberg(at)cranel(dot)com>, "Worky Workerson" <worky(dot)workerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Best COPY Performance
Date: 2006-10-30 14:23:07
Message-ID: C16B58DB.56EC%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Greg,

On 10/30/06 7:09 AM, "Spiegelberg, Greg" <gspiegelberg(at)cranel(dot)com> wrote:

> I broke that file into 2 files each of 550K rows and performed 2
> simultaneous COPY's after dropping the table, recreating, issuing a sync
> on the system to be sure, &c and nearly every time both COPY's finish in
> 12 seconds. About a 20% gain to ~91K rows/second.
>
> Admittedly, this was a pretty rough test but a 20% savings, if it can be
> put into production, is worth exploring for us.

Did you see whether you were I/O or CPU bound in your single threaded COPY?
A 10 second "vmstat 1" snapshot would tell you/us.

With Mr. Workerson (:-) I'm thinking his benefit might be a lot better
because the bottleneck is the CPU and it *may* be the time spent in the
index building bits.

We've found that there is an ultimate bottleneck at about 12-14MB/s despite
having sequential write to disk speeds of 100s of MB/s. I forget what the
latest bottleneck was.

- Luke

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mattias Kregert 2006-10-30 14:26:09 Re: Strange plan in pg 8.1.0
Previous Message Spiegelberg, Greg 2006-10-30 14:09:32 Re: Best COPY Performance