On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Such a thing would help COPY, so maybe it's worth a look >> >> I have little doubt that a deferred insertion buffer of some kind >> could help performance on some workloads, though I suspect the buffer >> would have to be pretty big to make it worthwhile on a big COPY that >> generates mostly-random insertions. I think the question is not so >> much whether it's worth doing but where anyone's going to find the >> time to do it. > > > However, since an admin can increase work_mem for that COPY, using > work_mem for this would be reasonable, don't you agree?
Without implementing it and benchmarking the result, it's pretty hard to know. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that's not nearly big enough. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
