On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Such a thing would help COPY, so maybe it's worth a look
>
> I have little doubt that a deferred insertion buffer of some kind
> could help performance on some workloads, though I suspect the buffer
> would have to be pretty big to make it worthwhile on a big COPY that
> generates mostly-random insertions. I think the question is not so
> much whether it's worth doing but where anyone's going to find the
> time to do it.
However, since an admin can increase work_mem for that COPY, using
work_mem for this would be reasonable, don't you agree?
