Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

From: Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
Date: 2006-10-13 15:48:50
Message-ID: slrneivdb2.27so.andrew+nonews@atlantis.supernews.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On 2006-10-13, Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> wrote:
> Makes sense. However, in this case I was batching updates in
> transactions and committing each txn at 1 second intervals, all on a
> single connection. In other words, the bottleneck illustrated by this
> test should not be related to fsyncs, and this does not seem to
> explain the huge discrepancy between update (1,000/sec) and insert
> (9,000 inserts/sec, also in 1-sec txns) performance.

Update has to locate the one live row version amongst all the dead ones;
insert doesn't need to bother.

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Harpreet Dhaliwal 2006-10-13 15:51:06 Server Added Y'day. Missing Today
Previous Message John D. Burger 2006-10-13 15:47:05 Re: A query planner that learns

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-10-13 16:02:02 Re: [HACKERS] array_accum aggregate
Previous Message Alexander Staubo 2006-10-13 15:43:33 Re: more anti-postgresql FUD