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
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() |
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 |