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!