Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle

Hi Merlin,
Thanks for your quick input.
Well 1 difference worth mentioning:
I am inserting each row in a separate transaction, due to design of my program.

-Divakar

________________________________
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Tue, October 26, 2010 2:21:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres insert performance and storage requirement
compared to Oracle

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I ran the following tests w/libpqtypes. While you probably wont end
> up using libpqtypes, it's illustrative to mention it because it's
> generally the easiest way to get data into postgres and by far the
> fastest (excluding 'COPY'). source code follows after the sig (I
> banged it out quite quickly, it's messy!) :-). I am not seeing your
> results.

I had a really horrible bug in there -- leaking a param inside the
array push loop. cleaning it up dropped another 5 seconds or so from
the 4th million inserted to the remote server!. Using local prepare
(PQspecPrepare) prob another second or two could be shaved off.

PGparam *t = PQparamCreate(conn);

for(i=0; i<INS_COUNT; i++)
{
PGint4 a=i;
PGtext b = "some_text";
PGtimestamp c;
PGbytea d;

d.len = 8;
d.data = b;

c.date.isbc = 0;
c.date.year = 2000;
c.date.mon = 0;
c.date.mday = 19;
c.time.hour = 10;
c.time.min = 41;
c.time.sec = 6;
c.time.usec = 0;
c.time.gmtoff = -18000;

PQputf(t, "%int4 %text %timestamptz %bytea", a, b, &c, &d);
PQputf(arr.param, "%ins_test", t);
PQparamReset(t);
}

merlin