> Just a data point, but on my Dual Xeon 2.4Gig machine with a 10k SCSI
> drive I can do 4k inserts/second if I turn fsync off. If you have a
> battery-backed controller, you should be able to do the same. (You will
> not need to turn fsync off --- fsync will just be fast because of the
> disk drive RAM).
> Am I missing something?
I think Ron asked this, but I will too, is that 4k inserts in one transaction or 4k transactions each with one insert?
fsync is very much faster (as are all random writes) with the write-back cache, but I'd hazard a guess that it's still not nearly as
fast as turning fsync off altogether. I'll do a test perhaps...
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Rob Nagler||Date: 2003-08-30 15:47:02|
|Subject: Re: How to force Nested Loop plan? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-08-30 15:14:04|
|Subject: Re: Selecting random rows efficiently |
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2003-08-30 15:37:01|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?|
|Previous:||From: Jonathan Gardner||Date: 2003-08-30 15:32:36|
|Subject: ALTER TABLE ... TO ... to change related names|