On 12/14/2012 09:57 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> I need to validate the vacuum results. It's possible that this is >> solvable by tweaking xmin check inside vacuum. Assuming that's fixed, >> the question stands: do the results justify the change? I'd argue >> 'maybe' > We can try with change (assuming change is small) and see if the performance > gain is good, then discuss whether it really justifies. > I think the main reason for Vacuum performance hit is that in the test pages > are getting dirty only due to setting of hint bit > by Vacuum. > >> -- I'd like to see the bulk insert performance hit reduced if >> possible. > I think if we can improve performance for bulk-insert case, then this patch > has much more value. Has there been any movement in this - more benchmarks and data showing that it really does improve performance, or that it really isn't helpful?
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
