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

From tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching
Date
Msg-id TYAPR01MB2990D7DA7D44F38E1BBD7FD3FEF80@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching  (Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching  (Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
From: Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@enterprisedb.com> 
> But in the libpq pipelining patch I demonstrated a 300 times (3000%) performance improvement on a test workload...

Wow, impressive  number.  I've just seen it in the beginning of the libpq pipelining thread (oh, already four years
ago..!) Could you share the workload and the network latency (ping time)?  I'm sorry I'm just overlooking it.
 

Thank you for your (always) concise explanation.  I'd like to check other DBMSs and your rich references for the FDW
interface. (My first intuition is that many major DBMSs might not have client C APIs that can be used to implement an
asyncpipelining FDW interface.  Also, I'm afraid it requires major surgery or reform of executor.  I don't want it to
delaythe release of reasonably good (10x) improvement with the synchronous interface.)
 

(It'd be kind of you to send emails in text format.  I've changed the format of this reply from HTML to text.)


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Add Information during standby recovery conflicts
Next
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist