| From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce WAL logging of INSERT SELECT |
| Date: | 2011-08-06 16:13:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAJKUy5gkN1OTEaPE5P146MLVDuv9Z7rvgp7LEzwxoJpkGxOuzQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 06.08.2011 13:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> I think we should remove the COPY optimisation because of this and
>> definitely not extend INSERT SELECT to perform it automatically.
>
> It can be very helpful when loading a lot of data, so I'm not in favor of
> removing it altogether. Maybe WAL-log the first 10000 rows or such normally,
> and skip WAL after that. Of course, loading 10001 rows becomes the worst
> case then, but something along those lines...
>
why 10000 rows? maybe the right solution is move towards make a normal
table unlogged and viceversa... probably that's harder to do but we
will have better control and less odd heuristics
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-08-06 16:21:41 | Re: Reduce WAL logging of INSERT SELECT |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-08-06 16:05:28 | Re: Reduce WAL logging of INSERT SELECT |