Re: INSERT extremely slow with large data sets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slavisa Garic [mailto:Slavisa.Garic@infotech.monash.edu.au]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:37 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: [HACKERS] INSERT extremely slow with large data sets
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is my first post here so please tell me to go somewhere
> else if this is the wrong place to post questions like this.
>
> I am using PostgreSQL 7.3.2 and have used earlier versions
> (7.1.x onwards) and with all of them I noticed same problem
> with INSERTs when there is a large data set. Just to so you
> guys can compare time it takes to insert one row into a table
> when there are only few rows present and when there are thousands:
>
> Rows Present        Start Time        Finish Time
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 100            1068790804.12           1068790804.12
> 1000            1068790807.87          1068790807.87
> 5000            1068790839.26        1068790839.27
> 10000            1068790909.24          1068790909.26
> 20000            1068791172.82        1068791172.85
> 30000            1068791664.06        1068791664.09
> 40000            1068792369.94        1068792370.0
> 50000            1068793317.53        1068793317.6
> 60000            1068794369.38        1068794369.47
>
> As you can see if takes awfully lots of time for me just to
> have those values inserted. Now to make a picture a bit
> clearer for you this table has lots of information in there,
> about 25 columns. Also there are few indexes that I created
> so that the process of selecting values from there is faster
> which by the way works fine. Selecting anything takes under 5 seconds.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated even pointing me in the
> right direction where to ask this question. By the way I
> designed the database this way as my application that uses
> PGSQL a lot during the execution so there was a huge need for
> fast SELECTs. Our experiments are getting larger and larger
> every day so fast inserts would be good as well.
>
> Just to note those times above are of INSERTs only. Nothing
> else done that would be included in those times. Machine was
> also free and that was the only process running all the time
> and the machine was Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz.

You should post the schema for the table in question when you ask a
question like this.

The behavior is not surprising in the least bit.  Every database will
perform in this way, since you have mentioned that you have indexes on
the table.

The depth of the tree will be proportional to the log of the row count.
As the tree gets deeper, inserts will be more and more expensive.

If you have a giant pile of stuff to insert, consider the COPY command
or API if it is time critical.