> On 21 Lis, 13:50, ciprian.crac...@xxxxxxxxx ("Ciprian Dorin Craciun")
> wrote:
> > What have I observed / tried:
> > * I've tested without the primary key and the index, and the
> > results were the best for inserts (600k inserts / s), but the
> > readings, worked extremly slow (due to the lack of indexing);
> > * with only the index (or only the primary key) the insert rate is
> > good at start (for the first 2 million readings), but then drops to
> > about 200 inserts / s;
I didn't read the thread so I don't know if this was suggested already:
bulk index creation is a lot faster than retail index inserts. Maybe
one thing you could try is to have an unindexed table to do the inserts,
and a separate table that you periodically truncate, refill with the
contents from the other table, then create index. Two main problems: 1.
querying during the truncate/refill/reindex process (you can solve it by
having a second table that you "rename in place"); 2. the query table is
almost always out of date.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
