From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Lok P <loknath(dot)73(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How batch processing works |
Date: | 2024-09-22 15:46:37 |
Message-ID: | a51348e6-2da2-4c33-a060-d7d9c416e4be@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 9/21/24 22:21, Lok P wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 12:46 AM Adrian Klaver
> <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thank you. So if I get it correct, if the client app(from which the data
> is getting streamed/inserted) is in the same data center/zone as the
> database (which is most of the time the case) then the batch insert does
> not appear to be much beneficial.
No, the point is that once the client and the database are not on the
same machine the network that they communicate across becomes a
consideration. In a contrived example the client could be in the same
same data center as the database server and talking to the server via a
dialup modem and the data transfer would be worse then the same client
talking to a database server a 1000 miles away across a fiber optic
connection. This gets back to plan --> test.
/|\ |
| <-- \|/
>
> Which also means , people here were afraid of having triggers in such a
> high dml table as because this will make the "batch insert"
> automatically converted into "row by row" behind the scene, but
> considering the above results, it looks fine to go with a row by row
> approach (but just having batch commit in place in place of row by row
> commit). And not to worry about implementing the true batch insert
> approach as that is not making a big difference here in data load
> performance.
This is getting ahead of the game. The immediate issue is the deadlock
issues with the concurrent sessions and duplicate data.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Förster | 2024-09-22 16:48:46 | Re: glibc updarte 2.31 to 2.38 |
Previous Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2024-09-22 14:16:52 | Re: glibc updarte 2.31 to 2.38 |