| From: | Alex K <kondratov(dot)aleksey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaAV(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel COPY FROM execution |
| Date: | 2017-06-30 13:42:06 |
| Message-ID: | CADfU8WxEn4aYhk4oC-SgG9UVMZ9zW7z0XxcB=m-QMqJDFdawQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> 2017-06-30 14:23 GMT+02:00 Alex K <kondratov(dot)aleksey(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>> Thus, it results in a ~60% performance boost per each x2 multiplication of
>> parallel processes, which is consistent with the initial estimation.
>>
>
> the important use case is big table with lot of indexes. Did you test
> similar case?
Not yet, I will try it, thank you for a suggestion. But how much is it
'big table' and 'lot of indexes' in numbers approximately?
Also, index updates and constraint checks performance are what I cannot
control during COPY execution, so probably I have not to care too much
about that. But of course, it is interesting, how does COPY perform in
that case.
Alexey
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-06-30 13:45:49 | Re: Parallel COPY FROM execution |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-06-30 13:32:42 | Re: Request more documentation for incompatibility of parallelism and plpgsql exec_run_select |