Hi,
On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 21:40, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 12:09:27AM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > I think the problem is deciding how many lines to process before
> > deciding for the rest. 1000 lines could work for the small sized data
> > but it might not work for the big sized data. Also, it might cause a
> > worse regressions for the small sized data.
>
> IMHO we have some leeway with smaller amounts of data. If COPY FROM for
> 1000 rows takes 19 milliseconds as opposed to 11 milliseconds, it seems
> unlikely users would be inconvenienced all that much. (Those numbers are
> completely made up in order to illustrate my point.)
>
> > Because of this reason, I
> > tried to implement a heuristic that will work regardless of the size
> > of the data. The last heuristic I suggested will run SIMD for
> > approximately (#number_of_lines / 1024 [1024 is the max number of
> > lines to sleep before running SIMD again]) lines if all characters in
> > the data are special characters.
>
> I wonder if we could mitigate the regression further by spacing out the
> checks a bit more. It could be worth comparing a variety of values to
> identify what works best with the test data.
Do you mean that instead of doubling the SIMD sleep, we should
multiply it by 3 (or another factor)? Or are you referring to
increasing the maximum sleep from 1024? Or possibly both?
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
