Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date: 2013-11-04 16:27:33
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob00Lhtnm4O=j0JrKVAZn8Y5KtVqqbTQBQVTuPK0TxKfA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Such a thing would help COPY, so maybe it's worth a look

I have little doubt that a deferred insertion buffer of some kind
could help performance on some workloads, though I suspect the buffer
would have to be pretty big to make it worthwhile on a big COPY that
generates mostly-random insertions. I think the question is not so
much whether it's worth doing but where anyone's going to find the
time to do it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2013-11-04 16:31:17 Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2013-11-04 16:24:14 Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments