Re: Performance issue - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Joseph Bove
Subject Re: Performance issue
Date
Msg-id 5.1.0.14.2.20030924130825.035a7438@mail.vetstar.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Performance issue  (peter <pmcgregor@advso.com>)
Responses Re: Performance issue
List pgsql-performance
Peter,

One possibility is to drop all the indexes, do the insert and re-add the
indexes.

The more indexes that exist and the more rows that exist, the more costly
the insert.

Regards,

Joseph

At 05:48 PM 9/24/2003 +1200, peter wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have been trying to get my Postgres database to do faster inserts.
>
>The environment is basically a single user situation.
>
>The part that I would like to speed up is when a User copys a Project.
>A Project consists of a number of Rooms(say 60). Each room contains a
>number of items.
>A project will contain say 20,000 records.
>
>Anyway the copying process gets slower and slower, as more projects are
>added to the database.
>
>My statistics(Athlon 1.8Ghz)
>----------------
>20,000 items            Takes on average 0.078seconds/room
>385,000 items          Takes on average .11seconds/room
>690,000 items          takes on average .270seconds/room
>1,028,000 items       Takes on average .475seconds/room
>
>As can be seen the time taken to process each room increases. A commit
>occurs when a room has been copied.
>The hard drive  is not being driven very hard. The hard drive light only
>flashes about twice a second when there are a million records in the database.
>
>I thought that the problem could have been my plpgsql procedure because I
>assume the code is interpreted.
>However I have just rewriten the code using straight sql(with some temp
>fields),
>and the times turn out to be almost exactly the same as the plpgsql version.
>
>The read speed for the Application is fine. The sql planner seems to be
>doing a good job. There has been only one problem
>that I have found with one huge select, which was fixed by a cross join.
>
>  I am running Red hat 8. Some of my conf entries that I have changed follow
>shared_buffers = 3700
>effective_cache_size = 4000
>sort_mem = 32168
>
>Are the increasing times reasonable?
>The times themselves might look slow, but thats because there are a number
>of tables involved in a Copy
>
>I can increase the shared buffer sizes above 32M, but would this really help?
>
>TIA
>
>peter Mcgregor
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Garrett Bladow
Date:
Subject: Re: LIKE query running slow
Next
From: Tomasz Myrta
Date:
Subject: Re: Index problem