Re: [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Date
Msg-id 1168137467.869.13.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
List pgsql-hackers
> > Is there some technical reason that the INSERT statements need to use WAL in
> > these scenarios?
>
> First, there's enough other overhead to an INSERT that you'd not save
> much percentagewise.  Second, not using WAL doesn't come for free: the
> cost is having to fsync the whole table afterwards.  So it really only
> makes sense for commands that one can expect are writing pretty much
> all of the table.  I could easily see it being a net loss for individual
> INSERTs.

What about multi value inserts? Just curious.

Joshua D. Drake


>
>             regards, tom lane
>
--

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Check for ERANGE in exp()