Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Using multi-row technique with COPY

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Using multi-row technique with COPY
Date: 2005-11-27 19:44:55
Message-ID: 1133120695.2906.230.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Since we just discussed using a multi-row per buffer lock technique with
Seq Scans, it seems appropriate to discuss a similar technique with COPY
FROM that I had been mulling over.

COPY FROM can read in sufficient rows until it has a whole block worth
of data, then get a new block and write it all with one pair of
BufferLock calls. This would only be possible, AFAICS, when a table does
not have any unique indexes or row triggers. It should be possible to
take advantage of this automatically when those requirements are met,
without any new options. Just as it was with Seq Scans, this is worth
about 10% reduction in CPU for a COPY FROM.

The main use case for this is initial table loads or restores from
dumps. However, it applies more widely since there is no requirement
that the table is empty, nor that it has only just been created within
the current transaction.

FSM access would need to change slightly to allow for whole-block-only
requests to be made for heaps, without damaging the average row length
calculation. It might be simpler to ignore FSM entirely?

As a further enhancement, I would also return to the NOLOGGING option
for COPY. Previously we had said that COPY LOCK was the way to go -
taking a full table lock to prevent concurrent inserts to a block from a
COPY that didn't write WAL and another backend which wanted to write WAL
about that block. With the above suggested all-inserts-at-once
optimization, it would no longer be a requirement to lock the table.
That means we can continue to take advantage of the ability to run
multiple COPY loads into the same table. Avoiding writing WAL will
further reduce CPU by about 15% and I/O by about 50%. 

I would also suggest that pgdump be changed to use the NOLOGGING option
by default, with an option to work as previously.


Best Regards, Simon Riggs


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-27 22:45:31
Subject: Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY
Previous:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-11-27 18:27:54
Subject: Re: Strange interval arithmetic

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group