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, ...,
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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-01-27 17:52:41|
|Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning |
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-01-27 17:48:56|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery infrastructure|