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
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 |