[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I just noticed that inserting 1 tuples in an indexed table took exactly
> the same amount of time as inserting 1 tuples in a non-indexed table
> (194 seconds). Why is this? The difference in MySQL is about 50% longer in
> an indexed table.
Surprises me too. Wh
The test script that set up the tables is the following:
---
/* Cleanup */
DROP SEQUENCE index_with_id_seq;
DROP SEQUENCE index_without_id_seq;
DROP INDEX name_index;
DROP TABLE index_with;
DROP TABLE index_without;
/* Create a table with an index */
CREATE TABLE index_with (
id SERIAL,
.
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel Akerud
>
> > Did you VACUUM ANALYZE as well, after you created the tables/indexes?
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2
Thanks Tom,
really appreciate it!
Daniel Akerud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > CREATE TABLE index_with (
> > id SERIAL,
> > name TEXT
> > );
> > CREATE INDEX name_index ON index_with(name);
>
> > CREATE TABLE index_without (
> > id SERIAL,
> > name TEXT
> > );
>
> Actually, what you
> You might try running the ten thousand inserts as a single transaction
> (do "begin" and "end" around them).
A HUGE difference (also completely took away the ID field (serial) having
only name):
Database vacuumed
pg: Trying 25000 inserts on index_with...
Time taken: 12 seconds
Database vac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I can't believe what a difference that made. How can it make it faster by
> putting it in a transaction? I thought that would make it slower. Like only
> a 100th of the time.
Everything is always a transaction in Postgres. If you don't say
begin/end, then there's an i
