On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So the first thing here is that the patch seems to be a clear win in >> this test. For a single copy, it seems to be pretty much a wash. >> When running 4 copies in parallel, it is about 20-25% faster with both >> logged and unlogged tables. The second thing that is interesting is >> that we are getting super-linear scalability even without the patch: >> if 1 copy takes 20 seconds, you might expect 4 to take 80 seconds, but >> it really takes 60 unpatched or 45 patched. If 1 copy takes 30 >> seconds, you might expect 4 to take 120 seconds, but in really takes >> 105 unpatched or 80 patched. So we're not actually I/O constrained on >> this test, I think, perhaps because this machine has an SSD. > > It's not unusual for COPY to not be I/O constrained, I believe.
Yeah. I've committed the patch now, with some cosmetic cleanup. -- 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
