Re: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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