Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
> > A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, kawasima(at)cs(dot)tsukuba(dot)ac(dot)jp (Hideyuki Kawashima) wrote:
> >> I appreciate your great suggestion!
> >> It is great honor for me if Sigres will be merged to PostgreSQL.
> >> Since the changes of Sigres from PostgreSQL-8.2.1 are not many,
> >> and moreover, all of changes are surrounded with #ifdef SIGRES --- #endif,
> >> incorporating Sigres into PostgreSQL would be easy.
> >
> > You should consider submitting a patch for this against CVS HEAD.
> >
> > And actually, I'd think it a better idea to define a GUC variable and
> > use that to control whether Sigres is active or not.
> >
> > At the more sophisticated end of the spectrum, you might set things up
> > so that it could be activated/deactivated at runtime by a superuser.
> >
> > At the less sophisticated end, it might need to be configured in
> > postgresql.conf...
>
> Whatever happen with this?

I would like to see more analysis about why Sigres is faster than an
in-memory file system. I think the idea was that locking was reduced
but I am unclear on why locking is different in the two cases.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +