| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Date: | 2010-10-27 18:06:00 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik1Acnzpm62XgHADZtZ0sgkxSo=43jKrX7+N_f1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Thanks for your inputs on the insert performance part.
> Any suggestion on storage requirement?
> VACUUM is certainly not an option, because this is something related to
> maintenance AFTER insertion.
> I am talking about the plain storage requirement w.r. to Oracle, which I
> observed is twice of Oracle in case millions of rows are inserted.
> Anybody who tried to analyze the average storage requirement of PG w.r. to
> Oracle?
There isn't much you can to about storage use other than avoid stupid
things (like using char() vs varchar()), smart table layout, toast
compression, etc. Are you sure this is a problem?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mladen Gogala | 2010-10-27 18:06:53 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-27 18:04:54 | Re: Simplifying replication |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mladen Gogala | 2010-10-27 18:06:53 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-27 18:03:36 | Re: CPUs for new databases |