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

Re: performance for high-volume log insertion

From: Glenn Maynard <glennfmaynard(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance for high-volume log insertion
Date: 2009-04-22 22:16:18
Message-ID: bd36f99e0904221516tb8285bn1c1af6205fa272e0@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> For a single column table, I wouldn't expect much either.  With more
> columns I think it would be a larger improvement.

Maybe.  I'm not sure why parsing "(1,2,3,4,5)" in an EXECUTE parameter
should be faster than parsing the exact same thing in an INSERT,
though.

> I've seen it help, but I was sending everything as binary (I figured,
> once I'm doing it, might as well do it all), which included dates,
> timestamps, IP addresses, integers, and some text.  It may have more of
> an impact on dates and timestamps than on simple integers.

Of course, you still need to get it in that format.  Be careful to
include any parsing you're doing to create the binary date in the
benchmarks.  Inevitably, at least part of the difference will be costs
simply moving from the psql process to your own.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Thomas KellererDate: 2009-04-22 22:25:52
Subject: Re: performance for high-volume log insertion
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2009-04-22 21:51:00
Subject: Re: performance for high-volume log insertion

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