From: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: speedup COPY TO for partitioned table. |
Date: | 2025-01-21 22:54:32 |
Message-ID: | CAGPVpCSKSSFA00HupfoseVPQXB7UPCpcwsMaz=X6ZwBm-vUK2A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Jian,
Thanks for the patch.
jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, 19 Ara 2024 Per, 15:03 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
> attached copy_par_regress_test.sql is a simple benchmark sql file,
> a partitioned table with 10 partitions, 2 levels of indirection.
> The simple benchmark shows around 7.7% improvement in my local environment.
>
I confirm that the patch introduces some improvement in simple cases like
the one you shared. I looked around a bit to understand whether there is an
obvious reason why copying from a partitioned table is not allowed, but
couldn't find one. It seems ok to me.
I realized that while both "COPY <partitioned_table> TO..." and "COPY
(SELECT..) TO..." can return the same set of rows, their orders may not be
the same. I guess that it's hard to guess in which
order find_all_inheritors() would return tables, and that might be
something we should be worried about with the patch. What do you think?
Thanks,
--
Melih Mutlu
Microsoft
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-01-21 22:57:55 | Re: Replace current implementations in crypt() and gen_salt() to OpenSSL |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2025-01-21 22:45:02 | Re: XMLDocument (SQL/XML X030) |