| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BufferAccessStrategy for bulk insert |
| Date: | 2008-10-31 06:33:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1225434782.3971.482.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 23:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Whatever timings you have are worth publishing.
>
> Here are the timings for copying the first ten million integers into a
> one-column table created in the same transaction, with and without the
> patch. As you can see, now that I've corrected my previous error of
> not putting CREATE TABLE and COPY in the same transaction, the savings
> are quite substantial, about 15%. Nice!
I had faith. ;-)
Can you test whether using the buffer access strategy is a win or a
loss? Most of that gain is probably coming from the reduction in
pinning.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-10-31 07:06:27 | Re: Decreasing WAL size effects |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-10-31 06:19:15 | Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch) |