From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BufferAccessStrategy for bulk insert |
Date: | 2008-11-01 17:23:12 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070811011023n202aea33w4da13b7d14f74134@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Can you test whether using the buffer access strategy is a win or a
> loss? Most of that gain is probably coming from the reduction in
> pinning.
Patch resnapped to HEAD, with straightforward adjustments to
compensate for Heikki's changes to the ReadBuffer interface. See
attached.
New testing results, now with and without BAS:
--TRUNK--
Time: 17945.523 ms
Time: 18682.172 ms
Time: 17047.841 ms
Time: 16344.442 ms
Time: 18727.417 ms
--PATCHED--
Time: 13323.772 ms
Time: 13869.724 ms
Time: 14043.666 ms
Time: 13934.132 ms
Time: 13193.702 ms
--PATCHED with BAS disabled--
Time: 14460.432 ms
Time: 14745.206 ms
Time: 14345.973 ms
Time: 14601.448 ms
Time: 16535.167 ms
I'm not sure why the BAS seemed to be slowing things down before.
Maybe it's different if we're copying into a pre-existing table, so
that WAL is enabled? Or it could have just been a fluke - the numbers
were close. I'll try to run some additional tests if time permits.
...Robert
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
bulk_insert-v2.patch | text/x-diff | 29.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-01 17:38:38 | Re: BufferAccessStrategy for bulk insert |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-01 16:32:18 | Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5) |