From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <dfarina(at)truviso(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
Date: | 2009-11-26 04:01:33 |
Message-ID: | 162867790911252001m3cd1d08bv585392b8b88fd6d5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/11/25 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 11:32 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 1.
>> postgres=# select count(*) from generate_series(1,1000000);
>> count
>> ─────────
>> 1000000
>> (1 row)
>>
>> Time: 930,720 ms
>>
>> 2.
>> postgres=# select count(*) from (select generate_series(1,1000000)) x;
>> count
>> ─────────
>> 1000000
>> (1 row)
>>
>> Time: 276,511 ms
>>
>> 2. is significantly faster then 1 (there are not SRF materialisation)
>
> I think case #1 can be fixed.
>
>> generate_function is fast and simple - but still COPY is about 30% faster
>
> My quick tests are not consistent enough, so I will have to try with
> more data. The times look similar to me so far.
>
> If there is a difference, I wonder what it is?
>
>> I thing, so materialisation is every time, when you use any SQL
>> statement without cursor.
>
> I don't think that is true. Here's an expanded version of my previous
> example:
>
> create table zero(i int);
> create table tmp(j int);
> insert into zero select 0 from generate_series(1,1000000); -- all 0
> insert into tmp select 1/i from zero; -- error immediately, doesn't wait
>
> The error would take longer if it materialized the table "zero". But
> instead, it passes the first tuple to the function for "/" before the
> other tuples are read, and gets an error immediately. So no
> materialization.
this show nothing.
It working like:
1. EXECUTE SELECT 0 FROM generate_series(1,...);
2. STORE RESULT TO TABLE zero;
3. EXECUTE SELECT 1/i FROM zero;
4. STORE RESULT TO TABLE tmp;
Problem is in seq execution. Result is stored to destination after
execution - so any materialisation is necessary,
>
> I worry that we're getting further away from the original problem. Let's
> allow functions to get the bytes of data from a COPY, like the original
> proposal. I am not sure COPY is the best mechanism to move records
> around when INSERT ... SELECT already does that.
>
In one single case hack I prefer using any hook and feature stored
contrib. I don't see a general using for this feature.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-26 04:16:51 | Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux |
Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-11-26 03:20:11 | Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux |