John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I attempted to load data amounting to 21 mbytes into a table which has
> a unique key both otherwise doesn't have indexes.
> The WALs consumed 2.9 Gigabytes of disk (and doubtless would have taken
> more if there was more to be had).
That seems li
I attempted to load data amounting to 21 mbytes into a table which has
a unique key both otherwise doesn't have indexes.
The WALs consumed 2.9 Gigabytes of disk (and doubtless would have taken
more if there was more to be had).
Considering that the entire data would fit into RAM (I have 128
