| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Faster inserts with mostly-monotonically increasing values |
| Date: | 2018-03-25 00:30:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAA8=A79iXsuiB822MUhaG=ss02XP8VeC6OafcFR=ZEt4oao_Aw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would probably just have a few regression lines that should be sure
>> to exercise the code path and leave it at that.
>>
>
> I changed the regression tests to include a few more scenarios, basically
> using multi-column indexes in different ways and they querying rows by
> ordering rows in different ways. I did not take away the vacuum and I
> believe it will actually help the tests by introducing some fuzziness in the
> tests i.e. if the vacuum does not do its job, we might execute a different
> plan and ensure that the output remains unchanged.
>
If we're going to keep the vacuums in there, do we need to add a wait
barrier like Claudio suggested upthread?
Once we decide on that I propose to commit this.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MauMau | 2018-03-25 00:34:22 | Re: Changing default value of wal_sync_method to open_datasync on Linux |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-24 22:47:59 | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |