for redundancy. Would it help to put the data, indexes and xlog on separate
I'll try adding more threads to update the table as you suggest.
----- Original Message ----
From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
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/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. Since
> the cpu time consumed by the corresponding postgres server process for my thread is
> small it does not seem to be the bottleneck. There has to be a bottleneck somewhere else.
> Do you agree or is there some flaw in my reasoning?
There is indeed a flaw in your reasoning - there may be very little CPU
time consumed, but that just indicates that the discs are busy. Getting
Postgres to do multiple things at once will cause a more efficient use of
the disc subsystem, resulting in greater overall throughput. This is
especially the case if you have multiple discs in your box.
Matthew
--
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be
very selective about who its friends are. -- Kyle Hearn
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance