The following bug has been logged online:

Bug reference: 4079
Logged by: Pavel Golub
Email address: pavel@microolap.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.1
Operating system: Windows XP SP2
Description: libpq.dll very slow (unusable)
Details:

Comparing 8.3.1 to 8.2.5 release INSERT of >1000 rows is very slow.

CREATE TABLE numbers
(
numberint integer NOT NULL,
numberstr character varying(80),
CONSTRAINT numbers_pkey PRIMARY KEY (numberint)
);

Inserts:
INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (1, 'One');
INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (2, 'Two');
INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (3, 'Three');
....
INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (1000, 'One thousand');

Program written on Delphi. Using libpq.dll 8.3.1.8075, and libpq 8.2.5.7260.
Both of them give the same results.

procedure Main(Db: TPSQLDatabase; SQL: string);
var
conninfo: string;
Conn: PGConn;
Res: PGResult;
cStart, cStop: cardinal;
begin
with Db do
Conninfo := Format('host = ''%s'' dbname = ''%s'' user = ''%s'' password
= ''%s'' port=''%d''',
[Host, DatabaseName, UserName, UserPassword, Port]);

Conn := PQConnectdb(PChar(ConnInfo));

If PQStatus(Conn) <> CONNECTION_OK then
begin
ShowMessage('CAN''T START connection!');
PQFinish(Conn);
Exit;
end;

cStart:=GetTickCount();

Res := PQExec(conn,PChar(SQL));
if PQResultStatus(res) <> PGRES_COMMAND_OK then
ShowMessage('CAN''T EXECUTE INSERTS');

cStop:=GetTickCount();
InfoMemo.Lines.Add('Execution time: '+IntToStr(cStop-cStart)+'ms');

PQClear(res);
PQFinish(Conn);
end;

Results with 10000 INSERTS:
- 984ms on PostgreSQL 8.2.7
- 25953ms on PostgreSQL 8.3.1

Result with 50000 INSERTS:
- 5063ms on PosgreSQL 8.2.7
- 26 minutes on PosgreSQL 8.3.1 (with 100% CPU usage)

The same behavior for pgAdmin III.

But psql works well when executing the request on both 8.2 and 8.3.

Tests were made under Windows XP only.

--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs

"Pavel Golub" <pavel@microolap.com> writes:
> Comparing 8.3.1 to 8.2.5 release INSERT of >1000 rows is very slow.

> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (1, 'One');
> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (2, 'Two');
> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (3, 'Three');
> ...
> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (1000, 'One thousand');

Fixed for 8.3.2. In the meantime, you might consider modifying your
application to do this as a single insert instead:

INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES
(1, 'One'),
(2, 'Two'),
(3, 'Three'),
...
(1000, 'One thousand')

A quick test says that this way is between three and four times faster,
even without considering the impact of the problem you're complaining
about.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs

Hello, Tom.

Thank a lot Tom.

Just curious, what was the reason?

Regards

You wrote:

TL> "Pavel Golub" <pavel@microolap.com> writes:
>> Comparing 8.3.1 to 8.2.5 release INSERT of >1000 rows is very slow.

>> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (1, 'One');
>> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (2, 'Two');
>> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (3, 'Three');
>> ...
>> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES (1000, 'One thousand');

TL> Fixed for 8.3.2. In the meantime, you might consider modifying your
TL> application to do this as a single insert instead:

TL> INSERT INTO numbers (numberint, numberstr) VALUES
TL> (1, 'One'),
TL> (2, 'Two'),
TL> (3, 'Three'),
TL> ...
TL> (1000, 'One thousand')

TL> A quick test says that this way is between three and four times faster,
TL> even without considering the impact of the problem you're complaining
TL> about.

TL> regards, tom lane


--
With best wishes,
Pavel mailtoavel@gf.microolap.com


--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs

Pavel Golub <pavel@microolap.com> writes:
> Just curious, what was the reason?

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...4/msg00044.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...4/msg00007.php

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs