The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
>
> > > Not exactly. But to get my application running we have to do something to
> > > speed it up. This morning I started my program on a database with 15165
> > > records in one table and something like 100 in a second plus 2 in a third.
> > > Then my software tries to add records to the first table and for each record
> > > added it updates a record in the other two. This doesn't count the select
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Anyway, the data isn't processed fast enough. I tried adding about 600
> > > records which should be done (the time in which the data was send) in 5
> > > minutes, but our system needed almost 8 minutes to insert the data. And this
> > > doesn't cause Oracle too much trouble.
> > >
> > > So I guess there's need for some speed-up. :-)
> >
> > I (and others) had done some benchmarking on simple inserts (6 months ago?) and
> > had concluded that the speed was similar to other commercial systems (I was
> > comparing against Ingres). I recall getting ~50TPS.
> >
> > This was all before Bruce did his work on startup and runtime speeds. You
> > really think your performance is that far off? You are doing selects on the big
> > table before inserting? Do you have indices set up?? Our results were for
> > inserts on a heap table, which has the least overhead...
And did you use BEGIN/END ?
Auto-commit is ON in postgres...
>
> Just curious, but do you have -F set to disable fsync()? We
> really really should disable that by default :(
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh no!
Vadim
