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: | 407fa4640809251146m46ffa4c9p6bf74cf8826c4852@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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
M.
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
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | burferd | 2008-09-25 23:20:31 | Newby Question - accessing refcursor. |
Previous Message | Michael Nacos | 2008-09-25 18:12:47 | Re: Performance comparison to psql. |