On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 22:59 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> For comparison, here's the test results with vanilla CVS HEAD:
>
> copy-head | 00:06:21.533137
> copy-head | 00:05:54.141285
I'm slightly worried that the results for COPY aren't anywhere near as
good as the SELECT and VACUUM results. It isn't clear from those numbers
that the benefit really is significant.
Are you thinking that having COPY avoid cache spoiling is a benefit just
of itself? Or do you see a pattern of benefit from your other runs?
(BTW what was wal_buffers set to? At least twice the ring buffer size,
hopefully).
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
