Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 11/26/20 2:48 AM, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com wrote:
> From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
>> Well, good that we all agree this is a useful feature to have (in 
>> general). The question is whether postgres_fdw should be doing 
>> batching on it's onw (per this thread) or rely on some other 
>> feature (libpq pipelining). I haven't followed the other thread,
>> so I don't have an opinion on that.
> 
> Well, as someone said in this thread, I think bulk insert is much 
> more common than updates/deletes.  Thus, major DBMSs have INSERT 
> VALUES(record1), (record2)... and INSERT SELECT.  Oracle has direct 
> path INSERT in addition.  As for the comparison of INSERT with 
> multiple records and libpq batching (= multiple INSERTs), I think
> the former is more efficient because the amount of data transfer is
> less and the parsing-planning of INSERT for each record is
> eliminated.
> 
> I never deny the usefulness of libpq batch/pipelining, but I'm not 
> sure if app developers would really use it.  If they want to reduce 
> the client-server round-trips, won't they use traditional stored 
> procedures?  Yes, the stored procedure language is very 
> DBMS-specific.  Then, I'd like to know what kind of well-known 
> applications are using standard batching API like JDBC's batch 
> updates.  (Sorry, I think that should be discussed in libpq 
> batch/pipelining thread and this thread should not be polluted.)
> 

Not sure how is this related to app developers? I think the idea was
that the libpq features might be useful between the two PostgreSQL
instances. I.e. the postgres_fdw would use the libpq batching to send
chunks of data to the other side.

> 
>> Note however we're doing two things here, actually - we're 
>> implementing custom batching for postgres_fdw, but we're also 
>> extending the FDW API to allow other implementations do the same 
>> thing. And most of them won't be able to rely on the connection 
>> library providing that, I believe.
> 
> I'm afraid so, too.  Then, postgres_fdw would be an example that 
> other FDW developers would look at when they use INSERT with
> multiple records.
> 

Well, my point was that we could keep the API, but maybe it should be
implemented using the proposed libpq batching. They could still use the
postgres_fdw example how to use the API, but the internals would need to
be different, of course.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company