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

Re: COPY FROM performance improvements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COPY FROM performance improvements
Date: 2005-06-25 23:27:08
Message-ID: 3251.1119742028@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> A struct "bytebuffer" is used instead of a StringInfoData for storing the
> line and attributes. A StringInfoData is actually really cool and useful,
> but we don't really need it's formatting capabilities in COPY FROM (as far
> as I know), and so the bytebuffer is more straightfoward and faster.

Is it really faster than appendStringInfoString or
appendBinaryStringInfo?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-25 23:55:43
Subject: Re: limiting connections per user/database
Previous:From: Petr JelĂ­nekDate: 2005-06-25 23:17:40
Subject: Re: limiting connections per user/database

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