From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
Date: | 2015-03-02 20:15:22 |
Message-ID: | 54F4C4DA.10300@iki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/02/2015 09:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> Are we OK with a 10% overhead, caused by the locking? That's probably
>> acceptable if that's what it takes to get UPSERT. But it's not OK just to
>> solve the deadlock issue with regular insertions into a table with exclusion
>> constraints. Can we find a scheme to eliminate that overhead?
>
> Looks like you tested a B-Tree index here. That doesn't seem
> particularly representative of what you'd see with exclusion
> constraints.
Hmm. I used a b-tree to estimate the effect that the locking would have
in the UPSERT case, for UPSERT into a table with a b-tree index. But
you're right that for the question of whether this is acceptable for the
case of regular insert into a table with exclusion constraints, other
indexams are more interesting. In a very quick test, the overhead with a
single GiST index seems to be about 5%. IMHO that's still a noticeable
slowdown, so let's try to find a way to eliminate it.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rahila Syed | 2015-03-02 20:17:50 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-02 20:15:14 | Re: 32bit OID wrap around concerns |