Re: speedup COPY TO for partitioned table.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)