On 2006-10-13, Alexander Staubo <alex@purefiction.net> wrote:
> Makes sense. However, in this case I was batching updates in
> transactions and committing each txn at 1 second intervals, all on a
> single connection. In other words, the bottleneck illustrated by this
> test should not be related to fsyncs, and this does not seem to
> explain the huge discrepancy between update (1,000/sec) and insert
> (9,000 inserts/sec, also in 1-sec txns) performance.
Update has to locate the one live row version amongst all the dead ones;
insert doesn't need to bother.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
