Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Date: 2007-01-07 03:09:08
Message-ID: 2917.1168139348@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> cost is having to fsync the whole table afterwards. So it really only
>> makes sense for commands that one can expect are writing pretty much
>> all of the table. I could easily see it being a net loss for individual
>> INSERTs.

> What about multi value inserts? Just curious.

I wouldn't want the system to assume that a multi-VALUES insert is
writing most of the table. Would you? The thing is reasonable for
inserting maybe a few hundred or few thousand rows at most, and that's
still small in comparison to typical tables.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-01-07 03:15:15 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-01-07 03:04:02 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Check for ERANGE in exp()

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-01-07 03:15:15 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-01-07 02:37:47 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances