On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Lis, 13:50, ciprian.crac...@gmail.com ("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 almost always out of date.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
The concerts you have listed are very important to me... I will
use the database not only for archival and offline analysis, but also
for realtime queries (like what is the power consumption in the last
minute)...
Of course I could use Postgres only for archival like you've said,
and some other solution for realtime queries, but this adds complexity
to the application...
Thanks,
Ciprian Craciun.