On 08/23/2016 07:44 AM, Francisco Olarte wrote:
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.
And if each insert is in a separate transaction, does this still hold true?
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
