| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Peter Geoghegan' <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Srinivas Karthik V <skarthikv(dot)iitb(at)gmail(dot)com>, Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bulk Insert into PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2018-07-02 02:07:15 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FA27778@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:pg(at)bowt(dot)ie]
> What kind of data was indexed? Was it a bigserial primary key, or
> something else?
Sorry, I don't remember it. But the table was for storing some machine usage data, and I don't think any sequence was used in the index.
According to my faint memory, iostat showed many reads on the database storage, and correspondingly pstack showed ReadBufferExtended during the btree operations. shared_buffers was multiple GBs. I wondered why btree operations didn't benefit from the caching of non-leaf nodes.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2018-07-02 02:07:26 | Re: Commitfest 2018-07 is underway |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-07-02 01:39:08 | Re: Bulk Insert into PostgreSQL |