Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

t; > 337ms > > 316ms > > 322ms > > 339ms > > 101ms > > 170ms > > 22ms > > 41ms > > 43ms > > 110ms > > 668ms > > 29ms > > 27ms > > 28ms > > 24ms > > 22ms > > > > > > *From:* Pavel Vinok

RE: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

: user@ignite.apache.org<mailto:user@ignite.apache.org> Subject: Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL In your example you add the same key/values into cache, so it's just overwrites entries and persists only 100 entries. Please look at the project https://bitbucket.or

RE: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

ntext/spring-context.xsd";> Thanks. From: Vinokurov Pavel [mailto:vinokurov.pa...@gmail.com<mailto:vinokurov.pa...@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:50 PM To: user@ignite.apache.org<mailt

Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class="org.springframework.jdbc.core.namedparam. > NamedParameterJdbcTemplate"> > > > > >

RE: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

Thanks. From: Vinokurov Pavel [mailto:vinokurov.pa...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:50 PM To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL Also it makes sense to use new 2.4 versi

Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

16),(:val17),(:val18),(:val19),(:val20)," >>>> >>>> + "(:val21),(:val22),(:val23),(: >>>> val24),(:val25),(:val26),(:val27),(:val28),(:val29),(:val30)," >>>> >>>>+ "(:val31),(:val32),

Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

+ "(:val31),(:val32),(:val33),(: >>> val34),(:val35),(:val36),(:val37),(:val38),(:val39),(:val40)," >>> >>> + "(:val41),(:val42),(:val43),(: >>> val44),(:val45),(:val46),(:val47),(:val48),(:val49),(:val50),"

Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

;> val54),(:val55),(:val56),(:val57),(:val58),(:val59),(:val60)," >> >> + "(:val61),(:val62),(:val63),(: >> val64),(:val65),(:val66),(:val67),(:val68),(:val69),(:val70)," >> >>+ "(:val71),(:val72),(:val73),(:

Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

2),(:val73),(: > val74),(:val75),(:val76),(:val77),(:val78),(:val79),(:val80)," > > + "(:val81),(:val82),(:val83),(: > val84),(:val85),(:val86),(:val87),(:val88),(:val89),(:val90)," > >+ "(:val91),(:val92),(:val93),(: > val9

RE: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

jdbcTemplate.update(sqlString, parameterMap); } From: Vinokurov Pavel [mailto:vinokurov.pa...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 5:42 PM To: user@ignite.apache.org Subject: Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL Hi, You could try to use igniteCache.putAll for write bat

Re: Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

Hi, You could try to use igniteCache.putAll for write batches by 1000 entries. Use following script in PostgresDBStore#writeAll method to put data into the database: String sqlString = "INSERT INTO test(val) VALUES (:val1)(:val2)(:val3);"; 2018-03-14 11:58 GMT+03:00 : > Hi, > > I try to use Ig

Performance of Ignite integrating with PostgreSQL

Hi, I try to use Ignite to integrate with PostgreSQL. And I use “atop” to monitor the data write to PostgreSQL. Then observed that the writing speed is 1 MB per second. This performance is not really good. Below is my configuration and code. Please help me to improve it. Thanks. There is my cache