| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Date: | 2016-02-10 09:54:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20160210095439.54gnh55sq5bx2n5n@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-02-10 10:32:44 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > Could you also measure how this behaves for an INSERT instead of a COPY
> > > workload?
> >
> >
> I think such a test will be useful.
> >
>
> I have measured the performance with insert to see the behavior when it
> don't use strategy. I have tested multiple option, small tuple, big tuple,
> data fits in shared buffer and doesn't fit in shared buffer.
Could you please also have a look at the influence this has on latency?
I think you unfortunately have to look at the per-transaction logs, and
then see whether the worst case latencies get better or worse.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2016-02-10 10:04:07 | Re: old bug in full text parser |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-10 09:36:43 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |