Re: PostgreSQL Write Performance - Mailing list pgsql-general

Thanks for the valuable advice! Will take them into consideration seriously..

From my point of view, my current requirement is limited by so-called "overhead" during communication with database.
Seethe following result from SQL Shell : 

SemiconductorInspection=# \timing on
Timing is on.
SemiconductorInspection=# ;
Time: 0.660 ms
SemiconductorInspection=# ;
Time: 0.517 ms
SemiconductorInspection=# ;
Time: 2.249 ms
SemiconductorInspection=#

I assume there shall be no hard disc activity involved, as I am sending "empty" SQL statement over.

Thanks and Regards
Yan Cheng CHEOK


--- On Thu, 1/7/10, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Write Performance
> To: "Yan Cheng Cheok" <yccheok@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Date: Thursday, January 7, 2010, 12:49 PM
> Yan Cheng Cheok wrote:
> > The time taken to perform measurement per unit is in
> term of ~30 milliseconds. We need to record down the
> measurement result for every single unit. Hence, the time
> taken by record down the measurement result shall be far
> more less than milliseconds, so that it will have nearly 0
> impact on the machine speed (If not, machine need to wait
> for database to finish writing, before performing
> measurement on next unit)
> >   
>
> Saving a piece of data to a hard disk permanently takes a
> few milliseconds.  As pointed out already, exactly how
> many depends on the drive, but it's probably going to be 8ms
> or longer on your system.  There are a few options
> here:
>
> 1) Add a battery-backed write caching controller to your
> system.  Then the battery will help make sure the data
> doesn't get lost even if the power goes out before the
> driver writes it out.  This will cost you around $300.
>
> 2) Use some other type of faster storage, such as a SSD
> drive that has a battery on it to cache any unfinished
> writes.  Probably also going to be around that price,
> the cheaper SSDs (and some of the expensive ones) don't take
> data integrity very seriously.
>
> 3) Write the data to a flat file.  Periodically import
> the results into the database in a batch.
>
> The thing you should realize is that using (3) is going to
> put you in a position where it's possible you've told the
> machine the measurement was saved, but if the system crashes
> it won't actually be in the database.  If you're saving
> to a flat file now, you're already in this position--you
> can't write to a flat file and make sure the result is on
> disk in less than around 8ms either, you just probably
> haven't tested that out yet.  Just because the write
> has returned successfully, that doesn't mean it's really
> stored permanently.  Power the system off in the window
> between that write and when the memory cache goes out to
> disk, and you'll discover the data missing from the file
> after the system comes back up.
>
> If you're OK with the possibility of losing a measurement
> in the case of a system crash, then you should just write
> measurements to a series of flat files, then have another
> process altogether (one that isn't holding up the machine)
> load those files into the database.  The fact that it
> takes a few ms to write to disk is a physical limitation you
> can't get around without using more expensive hardware to
> improve the situation.  If you haven't been seeing that
> in your app already, I assure you it's just because you
> haven't looked for the issue before--this limitation on disk
> write speed has been there all along, the database is just
> forcing you to address it.
>
> -- Greg Smith   
> 2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg@2ndQuadrant.com 
> www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
>