Re: generic copy options

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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>, Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: generic copy options
Date: 2009-09-18 01:02:33
Message-ID: 4AB2DC29.6090005@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Dan Colish <dan(at)unencrypted(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I ran something like you suggested and did a simple copy from an
>> empty file to just test the parsing. I have the COPY statement run 3733
>> times in the transaction block and did the select timestamps, but I
>> still only was a few milliseconds difference between the two versions.
>> Maybe a more complex copy statment could be a better test of the parser,
>> but I do not see a significant difference of parsing speed here.
>>
>
> I find that entirely unsurprising.
>
>
>

Me too.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mitani 2009-09-18 01:13:43 Re: PGCluster-II Progress
Previous Message daveg 2009-09-18 00:44:06 Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types