Hi pinker: On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:26 PM, pinker <pinker@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I am just surprised by the order of magnitude in the difference though. 2 > and 27 minutes that's the huge difference... I did another, simplified test, > to make sure there is no duplicates and the only difference between both > sets is the order: ... > INSERT INTO t_sequential SELECT * FROM source_sequential; > 102258,949 ms > INSERT INTO t_random SELECT * FROM source_random; > 1657575,699 ms If I read correctly, you are getting 100s/10Mkeys=10us/key in sequential, and 165 in random. I'm not surprissed at all. I've got greater differences on a memory tree, sorted insertion can be easily optimized to be very fast. AS an example, sequential insertion can easily avoid moving data while filling the pages and, with a little care, it can also avoid some of them when splitting. I'm not current with the current postgres details, but it does not surprise me they have big optimizations for this, especially when index ordered insertion is quite common in things like bulk loads or timestamped log lines. Francisco Olarte. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
