From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |
Date: | 2020-09-24 02:06:48 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm3mvcMZ=VeRba+f8j0R=qHB8xVCJRGVMKVQb=9Eh87zcg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> [1] - For table_multi_insert() in CTAS, I used an in-progress patch available at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEET0ZG31mD5SWjTYsAt0JTLReOejPvusJorZ3kGZ1%3DN1AC-Fw%40mail.gmail.com
> [2] - Table with 2 integer columns, 100million tuples, with leader participation,with default postgresql.conf file. All readings are of triplet form - (workers, exec time in sec, improvement).
> case 1: no multi inserts - (0,120,1X),(1,91,1.32X),(2,75,1.6X),(3,67,1.79X),(4,72,1.66X),(5,77,1.56),(6,83,1.44X)
> case 2: with multi inserts - (0,59,1X),(1,32,1.84X),(2,28,2.1X),(3,25,2.36X),(4,23,2.56X),(5,22,2.68X),(6,22,2.68X)
> case 3: same table but unlogged with multi inserts - (0,50,1X),(1,28,1.78X),(2,25,2X),(3,22,2.27X),(4,21,2.38X),(5,21,2.38X),(6,20,2.5X)
>
I feel this enhancement could give good improvement, +1 for this.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-09-24 02:21:17 | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2020-09-24 01:59:03 | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |