andrew klassen wrote:
I am using the c-library interface and for these particular transactions
I preload PREPARE statements. Then as I get requests, I issue a BEGIN,
followed by at most 300 EXECUTES and then a COMMIT. That is the
general scenario. What value beyond 300 should I try?
Make sure
andrew klassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am using the c-library interface and for these particular transactions
> I preload PREPARE statements. Then as I get requests, I issue a BEGIN,
> followed by at most 300 EXECUTES and then a COMMIT. That is the
> general scenario. What value beyond 300
ze of the table+indexes
when it gets slow ?
- Original Message
From: James Mansion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: andrew klassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:20:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert/update tps slow with i
involves file I/O) improve the
above scenario?
Thanks.
- Original Message
From: James Mansion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: andrew klassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 3:20:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert/update tps slow wit
andrew klassen wrote:
I'll try adding more threads to update the table as you suggest.
You could try materially increasing the update batch size too. As an
exercise you could
see what the performance of COPY is by backing out the data and
reloading it from
a suitable file.
--
Sent via pgsql
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
If you're running a "work queue" architecture, that probably means you
only have one thread doing all the updates/inserts? It might be worth
going multi-threaded, and issuing inserts and updates through more
than one connection. Postgres is designed pretty well to scale
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert/update tps slow with indices on table > 1M rows
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, andrew klassen wrote:
> I am using multiple threads, but only one worker thread for insert/u
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, andrew klassen wrote:
I am using multiple threads, but only one worker thread for insert/updated to
this table.
I don't mind trying to add multiple threads for this table, but my guess is it
would not
help because basically the overall tps rate is decreasing so dramatically.
sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 5:31:22 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert/update tps slow with indices on table > 1M rows
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, andrew klassen wrote:
> Basically, I have a somewhat constant rate of inserts/updates that go
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, andrew klassen wrote:
Basically, I have a somewhat constant rate of inserts/updates that go
into a work queue and then get passed to postgres.
The cpu load is not that high, i.e. plenty of idle cpu. I am running an older
version of freebsd and the iostat output is not very
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM, andrew klassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The cpu load is not that high, i.e. plenty of idle cpu. I am running an
> older
> version of freebsd and the iostat output is not very detailed.
> During this time, the number is low < 10Mbs. The system has an
> LSI Logic
3, 2008 7:15:10 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert/update tps slow with indices on table > 1M rows
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:36:09 +0200, andrew klassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Running postgres 8.2.5
>
> I have a table that has 5 indices, no foreign keys or any
> depende
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:36:09 +0200, andrew klassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Running postgres 8.2.5
I have a table that has 5 indices, no foreign keys or any
dependency on any other table. If delete the database and
start entering entries, everything works very well until I get
to some poin
Running postgres 8.2.5
I have a table that has 5 indices, no foreign keys or any
dependency on any other table. If delete the database and
start entering entries, everything works very well until I get
to some point (let's say 1M rows). Basically, I have a somewhat
constant rate of inserts/upda
14 matches
Mail list logo
