On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi <alessan...@path.com> wrote: >> >> ...Apparently the last four columns don't exist in my database. As for the >> first four, that is somewhat illuminating.... >> >> Then you are not running a current version of PostgreSQL so the first step >> to performance enhancement is to upgrade. (As a general rule - there are >> occasionally specific cases where performance decreases.) >> > We're using 9.0.6. Peter, how do you feel about upgrading? :) >
9.1's in beta; we're working on writing an upgrade system before calling it GA, but it works fine. Feel free. My hunch is still that your issue is lock contention. > No, not average. I want to be able to do 100-200 INSERTs per second (90% of > those would go to one of two tables, the other 10% would go to any of a > couple dozen tables). If 1% of my INSERTs take 100 ms, then the other 99% > must take no more than 9 ms to complete. > ...actually, it occurs to me that since I'm now committing batches of 1000, > a 100ms latency per commit wouldn't be bad at all! I'll have to look into > that.... (Either that or my batching isn't working like I thought it was.) > We have many customers who do much more than this throughput, though I'm not sure what level of resourcing you're current at. You might consider experimenting with a larger system if you're having performance problems. Peter -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
