| From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Date: | 2009-10-08 17:09:34 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.GSO.2.01.0910081304160.25300@westnet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> It may be that we should just say "if you want to import dirty data,
> it's gonna cost ya" and not worry about the speed penalty of
> subtransaction-per-row.
This goes along with the response I gave on objections to adding other
bits of overhead into COPY. If the performance only suffers when you're
targeting unclean data, the users this feature targets will glady accept
that trade-off. You're still way ahead of the other options here at the
finish line.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-10-08 17:10:18 | Re: Concurrency testing |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-10-08 17:00:33 | Re: Concurrency testing |