> On 21 Lis, 13:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Ciprian Dorin Craciun")
> wrote:> > What have I observed / tried: > > * I've tested without the primary key and the index, and the > > results were the best for inserts (600k inserts / s), but the > > readings, worked extremly slow (due to the lack of indexing); > > * with only the index (or only the primary key) the insert rate is > > good at start (for the first 2 million readings), but then drops to > > about 200 inserts / s; I didn't read the thread so I don't know if this was suggested already: bulk index creation is a lot faster than retail index inserts. Maybe one thing you could try is to have an unindexed table to do the inserts, and a separate table that you periodically truncate, refill with the contents from the other table, then create index. Two main problems: 1. querying during the truncate/refill/reindex process (you can solve it by having a second table that you "rename in place"); 2. the query table is almost always out of date. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
