On 02/19/2010 10:24:57 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, the automatic sequential key generation speed is unrelated
> > to table size when using postgresql.
>
> There is no sequence to generate as far as I know. The problem is the
> size
> of the index file, and the fact that it has to be rewritten for every
> insert (or block of inserts) that makes insertion get slower as
> database
> size increases.
Ah, thanks. Looks like there's no getting around that if you're going
to check for duplicates....
What backend db are you using? It does not seem like such slowdown
is warranted, especially on an index of the primary key which
can be stored and ordered along with the tuples themselves.
Or maybe that's the problem, ordering the tuples sucks up ram
and you'd be better off if the index was stored separately from
the tuples? Thinking out loud here....
Regards,
Karl <k...@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists
