From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: COPY and Volatile default expressions |
Date: | 2013-04-15 16:04:16 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+To5yv1m+pgT1TG-4yz1mKXNxR0CbLr8fTmrqGshVKdA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 April 2013 16:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 15 April 2013 16:24, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Do you have numbers on this, or ways to gather same? In other words,
>>> how do we know what resources (time, CPU cycles, disk seeks, etc.) are
>>> being consumed here?
>
>> The multi-insert optimisation for COPY is already there and works well
>> enough to have been committed.
>
> You seem to not have answered the question. Exactly what sort of
> performance gain might be possible, bearing in mind that anything that
> invokes a trigger (for instance) is unlikely to be amazingly fast
> anyway?
Forgive me, I assumed the list would be familiar with the optimization
and so be excited by the need for this.
I will implement as a kluge, test and report the results.
Loading data into a table with a SERIAL or UUID column is the main use
case, so I'll measure that.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2013-04-15 16:08:04 | Re: COPY and Volatile default expressions |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-04-15 16:03:59 | Re: COPY and Volatile default expressions |