The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > > I was just testing the threaded ecpg, and ran some performance tests.
> > > > Without using threads, I am seeing 100,000 inserts of a single word into
> > > > a simple table take 12 seconds:
> > > > CREATE TABLE test_thread(message TEXT);
> > > > giving me 8333 inserts per second. That seems very high.
> > >
> > > Single transaction, or one transaction per INSERT?
> >
> > This is ecpg, and I didn't have AUTOCOMMIT on, so it was a single
> > transaction. I had forgotten that.
> >
> > Also, I was wrong in my computations. It is 4166 inserts per second,
> > not 8333. Sorry.
> >
> > I am now seeing more reasonable numbers:
> >
> > one INSERT per transaction, fsync true 934
> > one INSERT per transaction, fsync false 1818
> > one INSERT per transaction, fsync true 4166
>
> Shouldn't 1 and 3 be about the same though? If both are 'one INSERT per
> transaction with fsync true', how come such a massive difference in #s?
Man, I can't do anything right; should be:
one INSERT per transaction, fsync true 934one INSERT per transaction, fsync false 1818INSERTs all in
onetransaction, fsync true 4166
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
