Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Such a thing would help COPY, so maybe it's worth a look
>>
>> I have little doubt that a deferred insertion buffer of some kind
>> could help performance on some workloads, though I suspect the buffer
>> would have to be pretty big to make it worthwhile on a big COPY that
>> generates mostly-random insertions. I think the question is not so
>> much whether it's worth doing but where anyone's going to find the
>> time to do it.
>
>
> However, since an admin can increase work_mem for that COPY, using
> work_mem for this would be reasonable, don't you agree?

Without implementing it and benchmarking the result, it's pretty hard
to know. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that's not nearly big
enough.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company