| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alan Li <ali(at)truviso(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Date: | 2009-06-21 16:38:34 |
| Message-ID: | 14308.1245602314@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> There was some discussion of doing this in general for all inserts
> inside the indexam. The btree indexam could buffer up any inserts done
> within the transaction and keep them in an in-memory btree. Any
> lookups done within the transaction first look up in the in-memory
> tree then the disk. If the in-memory buffer fills up then we flush
> them to the index.
> The reason this is tempting is that we could then insert them all in a
> single index-merge operation which would often be more efficient than
> retail inserts.
That's not gonna work for a unique index, which unfortunately is a
pretty common case ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2009-06-21 16:53:56 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-06-21 16:15:14 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |