Re: Improving speed of copy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Shridhar Daithankar
Subject Re: Improving speed of copy
Date
Msg-id 3D8B97AE.23803.19DCC348@localhost
Whole thread Raw
In response to Improving speed of copy  ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
Responses Re: Improving speed of copy  ("Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk>)
Re: Improving speed of copy  (Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 20 Sep 2002 at 21:22, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:

> Mysql takes 221 sec. v/s 1121 sec. for postgres. For postgresql, that is around 
> 11.5K rows per second. Each tuple has 23 fields with fixed length of around 100 
> bytes
> 
> I wrote a programs which does inserts in batches but none of thme reaches 
> performance of copy. I tried 1K/5K/10K/100K rows in a transaction but it can 
> not cross 2.5K rows/sec.

1121 sec. was time with postgres default of 64 buffers. With 30K buffers it has 
degraded to 1393 sec.

One more issue is time taken for composite index creation. It's 4341 sec as 
opposed to 436 sec for mysql. These are three non-unique character fields where 
the combination itself is not unique as well. Will doing a R-Tree index would 
be a better choice?

In select test where approx. 15 rows where reported with query on index field, 
mysql took 14 sec. and psotgresql took 17.5 sec. Not bad but other issues 
eclipse the result..

TIA once again..

ByeShridhar

--
revolutionary, adj.:    Repackaged.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: Improving speed of copy
Next
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Novell releasing PostgreSQL for NetWare.