| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Luc Vlaming <luc(at)swarm64(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |
| Date: | 2021-05-27 04:45:49 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACXHj9DibMhV9A8V1xc+dT2c6OL0_QDFOpTCAW2mXSs1nw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:12 AM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> I am afraid that the using the FSM seems not get a stable performance gain(at least on my machine),
> I will take a deep look into this to figure out the difference. A naive idea it that the benefit that bulk extension
> bring is not much greater than the cost in FSM.
> Do you have some ideas on it ?
I think, if we try what Amit and I said in [1], we should get some
insights on whether the bulk relation extension is taking more time or
the FSM lookup. I plan to share the testing patch adding the timings
and the counters so that you can also test from your end. I hope
that's fine with you.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-05-27 04:57:22 | Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-05-27 04:36:15 | Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory |