| From: | Dan Colish <dan(at)unencrypted(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic copy options |
| Date: | 2009-09-18 17:27:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20090918172726.GC14690@funkstrom.spiretech.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:21:08AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 9/17/09 3:54 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Dan Colish wrote:
> >
> >> - Performance appears to be the same although I don't have a good
> >> way for
> >> testing this at the moment
> >
> > Here's what I do to generate simple COPY performance test cases:
>
> Is there any reason to think that *this* copy patch will affect
> performance at all?
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> www.pgexperts.com
>
Nope, but it was on the checklist and I was being thorough.
--
Dan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-18 17:31:21 | Re: generic copy options |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-18 17:26:51 | Re: updated join removal patch |