Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535
Date: 2021-06-11 22:39:02
Message-ID: ec642523-bf1a-a4cd-013c-b789ff091849@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 6/9/21 4:05 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 6/9/21 3:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> Note that the problem here is [1] - we're creating a lot of slots
>>> referencing the same tuple descriptor, which inflates the duration.
>>> There's a fix in the other thread, which eliminates ~99% of the
>>> overhead. I plan to push that fix soon (a day or two).
>>
>> Oh, okay, as long as there's a plan to bring the time back down.
>>
>
> Yeah. Sorry for not mentioning this in the original message about the
> new regression test.
>

I've pushed a fix addressing the performance issue.

There's one caveat, though - for regular builds the slowdown is pretty
much eliminated. But with valgrind it's still considerably slower. For
postgres_fdw the "make check" used to take ~5 minutes for me, now it
takes >1h. And yes, this is entirely due to the new test case which is
generating / inserting 70k rows. So maybe the test case is not worth it
after all, and we should get rid of it.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-06-11 22:44:28 Re: Fdw batch insert error out when set batch_size > 65535
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-06-11 22:28:41 Re: recovery test failures on hoverfly