Search Postgresql Archives

Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2006-10-13, Alexander Staubo <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On my box (Dell PowerEdge 1850, dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB RAM, 10kRPM  
> SCSI, Linux 2.6.15, Ubuntu) I get 1,100 updates/sec, compared to  
> 10,000 updates/sec with MySQL/InnoDB, using a stock installation of  
> both. Insert performance is only around 10% worse than MySQL at  
> around 9,000 rows/sec. Curiously enough, changing shared_buffers,  
> wal_buffers, effective_cache_size and even fsync seems to have no  
> effect on update performance, while fsync has a decent effect on  
> insert performance.

Your disk probably has write caching enabled. A 10krpm disk should be
limiting you to under 170 transactions/sec with a single connection
and fsync enabled.

I also did some tests on this, and even though the machine I was testing
on had some competing database activity, autovacuum was effective at
keeping the table size stable (at 70-odd pages) when running several
hundred thousand updates on a 1-row table.

-- 
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux