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

Re: Performance comparison to psql.

From: "Michael Nacos" <m(dot)nacos(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Maciek Sakrejda" <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com>
Cc: "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance comparison to psql.
Date: 2008-09-25 18:46:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
I seem unable to perform basic calculus today... sorry again, with psql -1
the process took 97m
just to set the record straight -- the overhead from the implicit
transactions was 15m


On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Michael Nacos <m(dot)nacos(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> right! the -1 flag...
> I repeated the psql test, this time with the -1 flag, and the process
> completed in 107m
> so the transaction overhead in the previous psql tests is 5m
> psql is probably reading each line from the input file and immediately
> submitting it
> pgBee groups together many lines and batches them off to the server in one
> step
> btw, it's operations/sec, not milliseconds in my previous email -- sorry! I
> am not using
> prepared statements as I have to cope with arbitrary SQL, so it looks like
> I'm approaching
> the performance of unbatched but prepared JDBC statements mentioned in this
> table:
> Comparison table (records inserted per millisecond)
>                     COPY    JDBC    JDBC batch
> WITHOUT INDEXES:    198     1.5        14
> WITH  2 INDEXES:     45     1.5        10
> 898 operations/second vs. 1500 records/second in the table above. Besides,
> these numbers
> must be hardware-specific (I'm using a laptop with a 5400rpm disk)
> Michael

In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: burferdDate: 2008-09-25 23:20:31
Subject: Newby Question - accessing refcursor.
Previous:From: Michael NacosDate: 2008-09-25 18:12:47
Subject: Re: Performance comparison to psql.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group