Re: performance of insert/delete/update

Ron,

> As for bundling multiple statements into a transaction to increase
> performance, I think the questions are:
> - how much disk IO does one BEGIN TRANSACTION do? If it *does*
> do disk IO, then "bundling" *will* be more efficient, since
> less disk IO will be performed.
> - are, for example, 500 COMMITs of small amounts of data more or
> less efficient than 1 COMMIT of a large chunk of data? On the
> proprietary database that I use at work, efficiency goes up,
> then levels off at ~100 inserts per transaction.

That's because some commercial databases (MS SQL, Sybase) use an "unwinding
transaction log" method of updating. That is, during a transaction, changes
are written only to the transaction log, and those changes are "played" to
the database only on a COMMIT. It's an approach that is more efficient for
large transactions, but has the unfortuate side effect of *requiring* read
and write row locks for the duration of the transaction.

In Postgres, with MVCC, changes are written to the database immediately with a
new transaction ID and the new rows are "activated" on COMMIT. So the
changes are written to the database as the statements are executed,
regardless. This is less efficient for large transactions than the
"unwinding log" method, but has the advantage of eliminating read locks
entirely and most deadlock situations.

Under MVCC, then, I am not convinced that bundling a bunch of writes into one
transaction is faster until I see it demonstrated. I certainly see no
performance gain on my system.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco