On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:37 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 11:15 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Please review the v3 patch set further.
> >
> > Below is the performance gain measured for CREATE TABLE AS with the
> > new multi insert am propsed in this thread:
> >
> > case 1 - 2 integer(of 4 bytes each) columns, 3 varchar(8), tuple size
> > 59 bytes, 100mn tuples
> > on master - 185sec
> > on master with multi inserts - 121sec, gain - 1.52X
> >
> > case 2 - 2 bigint(of 8 bytes each) columns, 3 name(of 64 bytes each)
> > columns, 1 varchar(8), tuple size 241 bytes, 100mn tuples
> > on master - 367sec
> > on master with multi inserts - 291sec, gain - 1.26X
> >
> > case 3 - 2 integer(of 4 bytes each) columns, tuple size 32 bytes, 100mn
> > tuples
> > on master - 130sec
> > on master with multi inserts - 105sec, gain - 1.23X
> >
> > case 4 - 2 bigint(of 8 bytes each) columns, 16 name(of 64 bytes each)
> > columns, tuple size 1064 bytes, 10mn tuples
> > on master - 120sec
> > on master with multi inserts - 115sec, gain - 1.04X
>
> Performance numbers look good, especially with the smaller tuple size.
Thanks.
> I was looking into the patch and I have a question.
>
> +static inline void
> +table_insert_v2(TableInsertState *state, TupleTableSlot *slot)
> +{
> + state->rel->rd_tableam->tuple_insert_v2(state, slot);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void
> +table_multi_insert_v2(TableInsertState *state, TupleTableSlot *slot)
> +{
> + state->rel->rd_tableam->multi_insert_v2(state, slot);
> +}
>
> Why do we need to invent a new version table_insert_v2? And also why
> it is named table_insert* instead of table_tuple_insert*?
New version, because we changed the input parameters, now passing the
params via TableInsertState but existing table_tuple_insert doesn't do
that. If okay, I can change table_insert_v2 to table_tuple_insert_v2?
Thoughts?
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
