I guess I was thinking more in the range of 5000 transaction/sec, less
so 5000 rows on bulk import...
Alex
On Apr 6, 2005 12:47 PM, Mohan, Ross <RMohan@arbinet.com> wrote:
> <snip good stuff...>
>
> 31Million tuples were loaded in approx 279 seconds, or approx 112k rows per second.
>
> > I'd love to see PG get into this range..i am a big fan of PG (just a
> > rank newbie) but I gotta think the underlying code to do this has to
> > be not-too-complex.....
>
> I'd say we're there.
>
> || <CLAPPING!!> Yes! PG is there, assuredly! So VERY cool! I made a newbie
> error of conflating COPY with INSERT. I don't know if I could get
> oracle to do much more than about 500-1500 rows/sec...PG is quite impressive.
>
> Makes one wonder why corporations positively insist on giving oracle
> $$$$ yearly. <shrug>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Taylor [mailto:pg@rbt.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:41 PM
> To: Mohan, Ross
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: RE : RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for thisapplication ?
>
> On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 16:12 +0000, Mohan, Ross wrote:
> > I wish I had a Dell system and run case to show you Alex, but I
> > don't... however...using Oracle's "direct path" feature, it's pretty
> > straightforward.
> >
> > We've done 110,000 rows per second into index-less tables on a big
> > system (IBM Power5 chips, Hitachi SAN). ( Yes, I am sure: over 100K a
> > second. Sustained for almost 9 minutes. )
>
> Just for kicks I did a local test on a desktop machine (single CPU, single IDE drive) using COPY from STDIN for a set
ofintegers in via a single transaction, no indexes.
>
> 1572864 tuples were loaded in 13715.613ms, which is approx 115k rows per second.
>
> Okay, no checkpoints and I didn't cross an index boundary, but I also haven't tuned the config file beyond bumping up
thebuffers.
>
> Lets try again with more data this time.
>
> 31Million tuples were loaded in approx 279 seconds, or approx 112k rows per second.
>
> > I'd love to see PG get into this range..i am a big fan of PG (just a
> > rank newbie) but I gotta think the underlying code to do this has to
> > be not-too-complex.....
>
> I'd say we're there.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:38 AM
> > To: bsimon@loxane.com
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mohan, Ross
> > Subject: Re: RE : RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?
> >
> >
> > I think everyone was scared off by the 5000 inserts per second number.
> >
> > I've never seen even Oracle do this on a top end Dell system with
> > copious SCSI attached storage.
> >
> > Alex Turner
> > netEconomist
> >
> > On Apr 6, 2005 3:17 AM, bsimon@loxane.com <bsimon@loxane.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately.
> > >
> > > But we are in the the process to choose Postgresql with pgcluster.
> > > I'm
> > > currently running some tests (performance, stability...) Save the
> > > money on the license fees, you get it for your hardware ;-)
> > >
> > > I still welcome any advices or comments and I'll let you know how
> > > the
> > > project is going on.
> > >
> > > Benjamin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mohan, Ross" <RMohan@arbinet.com>
> > >
> > > 05/04/2005 20:48
> > >
> > > Pour : <bsimon@loxane.com>
> > > cc :
> > > Objet : RE: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this
> > > application ?
> > >
> > >
> > > You never got answers on this? Apologies, I don't have one, but'd be
> > > curious to hear about any you did get....
> > >
> > > thx
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
> > > [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
> > > bsimon@loxane.com
> > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:02 AM
> > > To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > > Subject: [PERFORM] Postgresql vs SQLserver for this application ?
> > >
> > >
> > > hi all.
> > >
> > > We are designing a quite big application that requires a
> > > high-performance database backend. The rates we need to obtain are at
> > > least 5000 inserts per second and 15 selects per second for one
> > > connection. There should only be 3 or 4 simultaneous connections.
> > > I think our main concern is to deal with the constant flow of data coming
> > > from the inserts that must be available for selection as fast as possible.
> > > (kind of real time access ...)
> > >
> > > As a consequence, the database should rapidly increase up to more
> > > than one hundred gigs. We still have to determine how and when we
> > > shoud backup old data to prevent the application from a performance
> > > drop. We intend to develop some kind of real-time partionning on our
> > > main table keep the flows up.
> > >
> > > At first, we were planning to use SQL Server as it has features
> > > that
> > > in my opinion could help us a lot :
> > > - replication
> > > - clustering
> > >
> > > Recently we started to study Postgresql as a solution for our project :
> > > - it also has replication
> > > - Postgis module can handle geographic datatypes (which
> > > would
> > > facilitate our developments)
> > > - We do have a strong knowledge on Postgresql administration
> > > (we use it for production processes)
> > > - it is free (!) and we could save money for hardware
> > > purchase.
> > >
> > > Is SQL server clustering a real asset ? How reliable are Postgresql
> > > replication tools ? Should I trust Postgresql performance for this
> > > kind of needs ?
> > >
> > > My question is a bit fuzzy but any advices are most welcome...
> > > hardware,tuning or design tips as well :))
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > Benjamin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
> >
> --
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
