Re: improving write performance for logging application

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: improving write performance for logging application
Date: ,
Msg-id: 2898.1136389165@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann)
Responses: Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann, )
 Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: improving write performance for logging application  (dlang, )
   Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann, )
  Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann, )
   Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann, )
 Re: improving write performance for logging application  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
  Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann, )
   Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Kelly Burkhart, )
    Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann, )
 Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Ian Westmacott, )
  Re: improving write performance for logging application  (Steve Eckmann, )
  Re: improving write performance for logging  (Ron, )
   Re: improving write performance for logging  (Ian Westmacott, )
    Re: improving write performance for logging  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
     Re: improving write performance for logging  (Ian Westmacott, )
      Re: improving write performance for logging  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
       Re: improving write performance for logging  (Ian Westmacott, )
        Re: improving write performance for logging  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: improving write performance for logging  (Michael Stone, )

Steve Eckmann <> writes:
> Thanks for the suggestion, Tom. Yes, I think I could do that. But I
> thought what I was doing now was effectively the same, because the
> PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Documentation says (section 27.3.1): "It is allowed to
> include multiple SQL commands (separated by semicolons) in the command
> string. Multiple queries sent in a single PQexec call are processed in a
> single transaction...." Our simulation application has nearly 400 event
> types, each of which is a C++ class for which we have a corresponding
> database table. So every thousand events or so I issue one PQexec() call
> for each event type that has unlogged instances, sending INSERT commands
> for all instances. For example,

>     PQexec(dbConn, "INSERT INTO FlyingObjectState VALUES (...); INSERT
> INTO FlyingObjectState VALUES (...); ...");

Hmm.  I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not.  You're causing the
server to take 1000 times the normal amount of memory to hold the
command parsetrees, and if there are any O(N^2) behaviors in parsing
you could be getting hurt badly by that.  (I'd like to think there are
not, but would definitely not swear to it.)  OTOH you're reducing the
number of network round trips which is a good thing.  Have you actually
measured to see what effect this approach has?  It might be worth
building a test server with profiling enabled to see if the use of such
long command strings creates any hot spots in the profile.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Ian Westmacott
Date:
Subject: Re: improving write performance for logging
From: Mark Liberman
Date:
Subject: Help in avoiding a query 'Warm-Up' period/shared buffer cache