Re: Performance issue

get rid of any unnecessary indexes?
i've found that droping indexes and re-creating them isn't usually worth the
effort

mount the disk with the noatime option which saves you the time involved in
updating the last access time on files

make sure you're doing all the inserts in one transaction..  wrapping a bunch
of INSERTS in BEGIN & COMMIT speeds them up loads.




> At 05:48 PM 9/24/2003 +1200, peter wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I have been trying to get my Postgres database to do faster inserts.
> >
> >The environment is basically a single user situation.
> >
> >The part that I would like to speed up is when a User copys a Project.
> >A Project consists of a number of Rooms(say 60). Each room contains a
> >number of items.
> >A project will contain say 20,000 records.
> >
> >Anyway the copying process gets slower and slower, as more projects are
> >added to the database.
> >
> >My statistics(Athlon 1.8Ghz)
> >----------------
> >20,000 items            Takes on average 0.078seconds/room
> >385,000 items          Takes on average .11seconds/room
> >690,000 items          takes on average .270seconds/room
> >1,028,000 items       Takes on average .475seconds/room
> >
> >As can be seen the time taken to process each room increases. A commit
> >occurs when a room has been copied.
> >The hard drive  is not being driven very hard. The hard drive light only
> >flashes about twice a second when there are a million records in the
> > database.
> >
> >I thought that the problem could have been my plpgsql procedure because I
> >assume the code is interpreted.
> >However I have just rewriten the code using straight sql(with some temp
> >fields),
> >and the times turn out to be almost exactly the same as the plpgsql
> > version.
> >
> >The read speed for the Application is fine. The sql planner seems to be
> >doing a good job. There has been only one problem
> >that I have found with one huge select, which was fixed by a cross join.
> >
> >  I am running Red hat 8. Some of my conf entries that I have changed
> > follow shared_buffers = 3700
> >effective_cache_size = 4000
> >sort_mem = 32168
> >
> >Are the increasing times reasonable?
> >The times themselves might look slow, but thats because there are a number
> >of tables involved in a Copy
> >
> >I can increase the shared buffer sizes above 32M, but would this really
> > help?
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >peter Mcgregor
> >
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)