On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
