From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: should INSERT SELECT use a BulkInsertState? |
Date: | 2020-10-16 21:05:12 |
Message-ID: | 20201016210511.GC9241@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:32:15AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 08:57:00PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:30:47AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2020-05-08 02:25:45 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > Seems to me it should, at least conditionally. At least if there's a function
> > > > scan or a relation or ..
> > >
> > > Well, the problem is that this can cause very very significant
> > > regressions. As in 10x slower or more. The ringbuffer can cause constant
> > > XLogFlush() calls (due to the lsn interlock), and the eviction from
> > > shared_buffers (regardless of actual available) will mean future vacuums
> > > etc will be much slower. I think this is likely to cause pretty
> > > widespread regressions on upgrades.
> > >
> > > Now, it sucks that we have this problem in the general facility that's
> > > supposed to be used for this kind of bulk operation. But I don't really
> > > see it realistic as expanding use of bulk insert strategies unless we
> > > have some more fundamental fixes.
> >
> > I made this conditional on BEGIN BULK/SET bulk, so I'll solicit comments on that.
>
> @cfbot: rebased
again
--
Justin
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v4-0001-Allow-INSERT-SELECT-to-use-a-BulkInsertState.patch | text/x-diff | 7.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2020-10-16 22:11:24 | Re: [PATCH] Add extra statistics to explain for Nested Loop |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-10-16 21:04:56 | Re: upcoming API changes for LLVM 12 |