From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tristan Partin <tristan(at)neon(dot)tech> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Use COPY for populating all pgbench tables |
Date: | 2023-07-13 03:52:49 |
Message-ID: | ZK91ET3oYP2OMfDI@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:29:35AM -0500, Tristan Partin wrote:
> On Wed Jul 12, 2023 at 1:06 AM CDT, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> This would use the freeze option only on pgbench_accounts when no
>> partitioning is defined, but my point was a bit different. We could
>> use the FREEZE option on the teller and branch tables as well, no?
>> Okay, the impact is limited compared to accounts in terms of amount of
>> data loaded, but perhaps some people like playing with large scaling
>> factors where this could show a benefit in the initial data loading.
>
> Perhaps, should they all be keyed off the same option? Seemed like in
> your previous comment you wanted multiple options. Sorry for not reading
> your comment correctly.
I would have though that --partition should only apply to the
pgbench_accounts table, while FREEZE should apply where it is possible
to use it, aka all the COPY queries except when pgbench_accounts is a
partition. Would you do something different, like not applying FREEZE
to pgbench_tellers and pgbench_branches as these have much less tuples
than pgbench_accounts?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2023-07-13 04:05:17 | Re: 'ERROR: attempted to update invisible tuple' from 'ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION' on parent index |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-07-13 03:49:03 | Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long |