Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: gin fast insert performance

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: gin fast insert performance
Date: 2009-01-27 17:50:51
Message-ID: 1233078651.1243.16.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 20:36 +0300, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> You didn't provide distributions of array's element, number of unique element 
> and so on. And I make simple test script, which generates data  rather close to 
> typical tsearch installation (see tst.sql).

The arrays I was inserting were actually all identical. In the case of a
1000-element array inserted 10000 times, it was just ARRAY[1, 2, ...,
1000].

My test case must have been much to simple, but I expected that it would
still benefit from fast insert.

> "but increased work_mem clearly *may* defer a lot of the work to VACUUM." 
> Because in real world it's impossible to predict when clearing of pending list 
> will be started. And autovacuum usually will fire the clearing earlier than 
> pending list reaches the limit.

Yes, that is the expected result and part of the design. It was just an
observation, not a criticism.

I will try with a better test case.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-01-27 17:52:41
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-01-27 17:48:56
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery infrastructure

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group