| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance |
| Date: | 2006-03-21 22:23:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1142979794.17883.205.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 15:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> writes:
> > I've also found that modest increases in commit_siblings and
> > commit_delay help a lot on certain types of imports.
>
> On a data import? Those really should have zero effect on a
> single-process workload. Or are you doing multiple concurrent imports?
That, and it's a machine that's doing other things. Also, a lot of the
imports are NOT bundled up into groups of transactions. i.e. lots and
lots of individual insert queries.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig A. James | 2006-03-21 22:40:17 | Poor performance o |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-21 21:56:25 | Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance |