| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)sun(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Benchmark Data requested |
| Date: | 2008-02-05 14:43:36 |
| Message-ID: | 47A87618.1090203@archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>>
>> Le lundi 04 février 2008, Jignesh K. Shah a écrit :
>>> Multiple table loads ( 1 per table) spawned via script is bit better
>>> but hits wal problems.
>> pgloader will too hit the WAL problem, but it still may have its benefits, or
>> at least we will soon (you can already if you take it from CVS) be able to
>> measure if the parallel loading at the client side is a good idea perf. wise.
>
> Should be able to reduce lock contention, but not overall WAL volume.
In the case of a bulk upload to an empty table (or partition?) could you
not optimise the WAL away? That is, shouldn't the WAL basically be a
simple transformation of the on-disk blocks? You'd have to explicitly
sync the file(s) for the table/indexes of course, and you'd need some
work-around for WAL shipping, but it might be worth it for you chaps
with large imports.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew | 2008-02-05 14:51:29 | Re: Benchmark Data requested |
| Previous Message | Matthew | 2008-02-05 14:29:12 | Re: Benchmark Data requested |