| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2018-11-14 20:48:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f-P7mquSKeqxX7Sfmke24zYGWc_4b1kf3X+SvpifU7GDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for picking this up.
On 15 November 2018 at 07:10, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> What's with this comment?
>
> * Initially we must only set up 1 PartitionDispatch object; the one for
> * the partitioned table that's the target of the command. If we must
> * route a tuple via some sub-partitioned table, then its
> * PartitionDispatch is only built the first time it's required.
>
> You're setting the allocsize to PARTITION_ROUTING_INITSIZE, which is at
> odds with the '1' mentioned in the comment. Which is wrong?
I don't think either is wrong, but I guess something must be
misleading, so could perhaps be improved.
We're simply allocating enough space for PARTITION_ROUTING_INITSIZE
but we're only initialising 1 item. That leaves space for
PARTITION_ROUTING_INITSIZE - 1 more items before we'd need to
reallocate the array.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2018-11-14 21:27:24 | Re: In-place updates and serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-14 20:42:31 | Re: date_trunc() in a specific time zone |