Thread

  1. Re: Performance

    Webb Sprague <wsprague100@yahoo.com> — 2000-06-02T16:51:39Z

    I was working with \copy recently, and one of the
    problems with it is that it won't make the defaults
    happen, including serial for primary key (I think).  I
    wrote an "awk" script that takes a '|' delimited file
    with the name of the table fields in the top row & the
    data to insert in the other rows, and turns it into a
    series of INSERTS.  If you want it, email me (I am on
    the DOS part of a dual boot machine, so I can't get it
    right now).
    
    W
    --- Ron Chmara <ron@Opus1.COM> wrote:
    > Thomas Weholt wrote:
    > > 
    > > Hi,
    > > I just got my Postgres-database up and running,
    > putting in data using a
    > > Python-script, using the latest version of the
    > PyGres-module by
    > > Darcy@druid.net. It works great!
    > 
    > Python is pretty. But it can suffer from poor
    > scripting, from excessive
    > overhead (quite common in OO).
    > 
    > > But insertion seems slow, even though I
    > > just got a few indexes.
    > 
    > How slow is it? 
    > 
    > > How can I turn off the fsync-variable? There must
    > be
    > > a way to turn it off when starting the database,
    > like postmaster -x where x
    > > is some command-line option or a setting in a
    > config-file etc.
    > 
    > -F
    >
    http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-general/1999-11/msg00127.html
    > 
    > > I haven`t
    > > found anything in my search so far. What will this
    > do in terms of
    > > performance ( 1-5 times ??? ) 
    > 
    > See:
    >
    http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-general/1999-12/msg00476.html
    > 
    > > and is it considered safe? ( I`m running Linux)
    > 
    > as long as you don't crash or lose power. :-)
    > 
    > > How does PostgreSQL compare in terms of speed
    > compared to other databases,
    > > commercial products included??
    > 
    > It's slower than MySQL on simple tables, but that's
    > because you can do
    > much more complex tables.
    > 
    > > I need to insert about 2000-10000 records into a
    > database. I`m using Python
    > > to do this. Is there a way to use some form of
    > bulk copy that will do this
    > > faster than plain-old insert for each and every
    > record?
    > 
    > On an extremely fast system, with Fsync off, this
    > should take less than
    > 30 seconds. On slower systems, or with fsync on,
    > your performance will
    > degrade greatly. I've seen 468 machines running at 2
    > inserts a second...
    > 
    > Aside from that backend speed, you might try
    > converting the text data
    > you have into SQL _first_, and then feeding that in
    > as a file. If you
    > are reading a line, parsing, inserting, reading the
    > next line, parsing,
    > inserting... well, you get the picture. That loop
    > will cost you.
    > 
    > -Ronabop
    > 
    > -- 
    >
    --2D426F70|759328624|00101101010000100110111101110000
    > Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95,
    > Win98, LinuxPPC machine,
    > which is currently in LinuxPPC land.  Your bopping
    > may vary. Do not eat
    > contents. Cape does not enable wearer to fly. Use
    > only as directed.
    
    
    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
    http://photos.yahoo.com