| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 16:31:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpa3NN6w24Ndr+L_rEGWjJKeXupZpQjzQKeLmt6+hm5Xsg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
However, since an admin can increase work_mem for that COPY, using
work_mem for this would be reasonable, don't you agree?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-04 16:31:30 | Re: pg_ctl status with nonexistent data directory |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-04 16:27:33 | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |