Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table
Date: 2012-08-20 20:27:46
Message-ID: 8708.1345494466@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On the other hand, the problem of the FSM taking up 24kB for an 8kB
>>> table seems clearly worth fixing, but I don't think I have the cycles
>>> for it at present. Maybe a TODO is in order.

> I certainly think that'd be worth a TODO. Whether the rest of this is
> worth worrying about I'm not sure.

Surely we could just prevent creation of the FSM until the table has
reached at least, say, 10 blocks.

Any threshold beyond one block would mean potential space wastage,
but it's hard to get excited about that until you're into the dozens
of pages.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-08-20 20:32:26 Re: Tab completion for DROP CONSTRAINT
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2012-08-20 20:26:46 Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core?