From: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres INSERT performance and scalability |
Date: | 2011-09-20 01:21:38 |
Message-ID: | CAKuK5J0-fEHVm_c_H6T6XMk9PQE6zDohBHqZ39CHu5Hz0kGC4g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Igor,
>
> * Igor Chudov (ichudov(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> Would the time that it takes, differ a great deal, depending on whether the
>> table has only 100,000 or 5,000,000 records?
>
> Yes, because PostgreSQL is going to copy the data. If you don't need or
> want it to be copied, just use a view. I've never heard of any
> relational database implementing 'copy on write' type semantics, if
> that's what you're asking about. Databases, unlike applications with
> code in memory that's constantly copied, are typically focused around
> minimizing duplication of data (since it all has to end up on disk at
> some point). Not much point in having the overhead of COW for that kind
> of environment, I wouldn't think.
Isn't the WAL basically COW?
--
Jon
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-09-20 01:32:41 | Re: Postgres INSERT performance and scalability |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-09-20 01:15:51 | Re: Postgres INSERT performance and scalability |