| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic copy options |
| Date: | 2009-09-18 00:39:18 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909171739o6dc81894ib649261d2bc3c8cb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Dan Colish <dan(at)unencrypted(dot)org> wrote:
> Ok, so I ran something like you suggested and did a simple copy from an
> empty file to just test the parsing. I have the COPY statement run 3733
> times in the transaction block and did the select timestamps, but I
> still only was a few milliseconds difference between the two versions.
> Maybe a more complex copy statment could be a better test of the parser,
> but I do not see a significant difference of parsing speed here.
I find that entirely unsurprising.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | daveg | 2009-09-18 00:44:06 | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
| Previous Message | Dan Colish | 2009-09-18 00:31:43 | Re: generic copy options |