| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
| Date: | 2015-03-02 19:29:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS39XN09-RUHWDrnyv7-DT3-317+0Zma9HA1z0LX2NY=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Are we OK with a 10% overhead, caused by the locking? That's probably
> acceptable if that's what it takes to get UPSERT. But it's not OK just to
> solve the deadlock issue with regular insertions into a table with exclusion
> constraints. Can we find a scheme to eliminate that overhead?
Looks like you tested a B-Tree index here. That doesn't seem
particularly representative of what you'd see with exclusion
constraints.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-02 19:31:57 | Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-02 19:21:32 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |