Re: Insert Times - Mailing list pgsql-performance

I tested this out and saw no improvement:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM one;
Seq Scan on one  (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=404) (actual time=0.04..0.50 rows=51 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.75 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM one;
Seq Scan on one  (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=404) (actual time=0.06..0.50 rows=51 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.64 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM one;
Seq Scan on one  (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=404) (actual time=0.04..0.40 rows=51 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.54 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM one;
Seq Scan on one  (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=404) (actual time=0.04..0.41 rows=51 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.54 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM one;
Seq Scan on one  (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=404) (actual time=0.04..0.41 rows=51 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.53 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE INSERT INTO one (id, msg) VALUES (1, 'blah');
Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.01..0.02 rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.85 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE INSERT INTO one (id, msg) VALUES (1, 'blah');
Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.02..0.02 rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.15 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE INSERT INTO one (id, msg) VALUES (1, 'blah');
Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.02..0.02 rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.14 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE INSERT INTO one (id, msg) VALUES (1, 'blah');
Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.02..0.02 rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.12 msec
EXPLAIN ANALYZE INSERT INTO one (id, msg) VALUES (1, 'blah');
Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.01..0.02 rows=1 loops=1)
Total runtime: 0.12 msec



-----Original Message-----
From:    Leeuw van der, Tim [mailto:tim.leeuwvander@nl.unisys.com]
Sent:    Tue 1/27/2004 12:38 AM
To:    PC Drew; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc:
Subject:    RE: [PERFORM] Insert Times

Hi,

My personal feeling on this is, that the long time taken for the first query
is for loading all sorts of libraries, JVM startup overhead etc.

What if you first do some SELECT (whatever), on a different table, to warm
up the JVM and the database?

regards,

--Tim

THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its
attachments from all computers.