On Wednesday, January 16, 2013, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I am not sure how a COPY could be easily parallelized, but I supposed it
> > could be done as part of the 1GB segment feature. People have
> > complained that COPY is CPU-bound, so it might be very interesting to
> > see if we could offload some of that parsing overhead to a child.
> COPY can certainly be CPU bound but before we can parallelize that
> usefully we need to solve the problem around extent locking when trying
> to do multiple COPY's to the same table.
I think that is rather over-stating it. Even with unindexed untriggered
tables, I can get some benefit from doing hand-rolled parallel COPY before
the extension lock becomes an issue, at least on some machines. And with
triggered or indexed tables, all the more so.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-01-17 03:40:07|
|Subject: Re: CF3+4|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2013-01-17 03:29:24|
|Subject: Re: Parallel query execution|