Subject | Re: [Firebird-general] Re: Just a few words about Firebird 3.0 performance. |
---|---|
Author | Dmitry Kuzmenko |
Post date | 2016-06-10T10:07:04Z |
Hello, un_spoken@...!
Friday, June 10, 2016, 12:55:16 PM, you wrote:
uycuFg> I dont understand you: "undo" log?
well, hope DS will explain.
uycuFg> Make a simple test: make 100 inserts per 30000 records and
uycuFg> then make 1000 inserts per 3000 and you will see that the
uycuFg> second solution is faster. Which means smaller transactions perform better.
no, it's not faster. FYI, gbak uses 1 transaction to restore the whole
table, and this is the fastest way to insert data.
Starting/committing more transactions you add overhead to write to the
header page, TIP page, so, additional I/O can't speed up anything.
seems that you have something in your application, that buffer records
that are inserted, so, the more inserts, the slower process.
--
Dmitry Kuzmenko, www.ib-aid.com
Friday, June 10, 2016, 12:55:16 PM, you wrote:
>>No. It even won't cause Firebird to drop transaction's undo log.uycuFg>
uycuFg> I dont understand you: "undo" log?
well, hope DS will explain.
uycuFg> Make a simple test: make 100 inserts per 30000 records and
uycuFg> then make 1000 inserts per 3000 and you will see that the
uycuFg> second solution is faster. Which means smaller transactions perform better.
no, it's not faster. FYI, gbak uses 1 transaction to restore the whole
table, and this is the fastest way to insert data.
Starting/committing more transactions you add overhead to write to the
header page, TIP page, so, additional I/O can't speed up anything.
seems that you have something in your application, that buffer records
that are inserted, so, the more inserts, the slower process.
--
Dmitry Kuzmenko, www.ib-aid.com