Re: Best COPY Performance
Worky Workerson <worky.workerson@gmail.com>
From: "Worky Workerson" <worky.workerson@gmail.com>
To: "Craig A. James" <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>
Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Date: 2006-10-25T12:03:38Z
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 10/25/06, Craig A. James <cjames@modgraph-usa.com> wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > Well, given that perl is using an entire CPU, it sounds like you should > > start looking either at ways to remove some of the overhead from perl, > > or to split that perl into multiple processes. > > I use Perl for big database copies (usually with some processing/transformation along the > way) and I've never seen 100% CPU usage except for brief periods, even when copying > BLOBS and such. My typical copy divides operations into blocks, for example doing I'm just doing CSV style transformations (and calling a lot of functions along the way), but the end result is a straight bulk load of data into a blank database. And we've established that Postgres can do *way* better than what I am seeing, so its not suprising that perl is using 100% of a CPU. However, I am still curious as to the rather slow COPYs from psql to local disks. Like I mentioned previously, I was only seeing about 5.7 MB/s (1.8 GB / 330 seconds), where it seemed like others were doing substantially better. What sorts of things should I look into? Thanks!