| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Phil Currier <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: logical column ordering |
| Date: | 2014-12-10 05:11:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4231.1418188302@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Question on COPY, though: there's reasons why people would want COPY to
> dump in either physical or logical order. If you're doing COPY to
> create CSV files for output, then you want the columns in logical order.
> If you're doing COPY for pg_dump, then you want them in physical order
> for faster dump/reload. So we're almost certainly going to need to have
> an option for COPY.
This is complete nonsense, Josh, or at least it is until you can provide
some solid evidence to believe that column ordering would make any
noticeable performance difference in COPY. I know of no reason to believe
that the existing user-defined-column-ordering option makes any difference.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-10 05:17:33 | Re: logical column ordering |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-12-10 04:48:39 | Re: thinko in convertToJsonb() |