On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the first thing here is that the patch seems to be a clear win in
> this test. For a single copy, it seems to be pretty much a wash.
> When running 4 copies in parallel, it is about 20-25% faster with both
> logged and unlogged tables. The second thing that is interesting is
> that we are getting super-linear scalability even without the patch:
> if 1 copy takes 20 seconds, you might expect 4 to take 80 seconds, but
> it really takes 60 unpatched or 45 patched. If 1 copy takes 30
> seconds, you might expect 4 to take 120 seconds, but in really takes
> 105 unpatched or 80 patched. So we're not actually I/O constrained on
> this test, I think, perhaps because this machine has an SSD.
It's not unusual for COPY to not be I/O constrained, I believe.
--
Peter Geoghegan
