From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Guoping Zhang <guoping(dot)zhang(at)nec(dot)com(dot)au>, 'Florian Weimer' <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql |
Date: | 2006-07-19 15:49:17 |
Message-ID: | 44BE547D.1000602@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Guoping Zhang (guoping(dot)zhang(at)nec(dot)com(dot)au) wrote:
>
>>Obviously, if there is no better solution, the TCP round trip penalty will
>>stop us doing so as we do have performance requirement.
>
> Actually, can't you stick multiple inserts into a given 'statement'?
> ie: insert into abc (123); insert into abc (234);
>
> I'm not 100% sure if that solves the round-trip issue, but it might..
> Also, it looks like we might have multi-value insert support in 8.2 (I
> truely hope so anyway), so you could do something like this:
> insert into abc (123),(234);
Yeah, see my post from last night on PATCHES. Something like "insert
into abc (123); insert into abc (234); ..." actually seems to work
pretty well as long as you don't drive the machine into swapping. If
you're doing a very large number of INSERTs, break it up into bite-sized
chunks and you should be fine.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guoping Zhang | 2006-07-20 06:32:45 | Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql (8.1.3)? any experiance? |
Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2006-07-19 14:41:49 | Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql |