Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 06 January 2007 16:36, Simon Riggs wrote: > <snip> >> BEGIN; >> CREATE TABLE foo... >> INSERT INTO foo --uses WAL >> COPY foo.. --no WAL >> INSERT INTO foo --uses WAL >> COPY foo.. --no WAL >> INSERT INTO foo --uses WAL >> COPY foo... --no WAL >> COMMIT;
> Is there some technical reason that the INSERT statements need to use WAL in > these scenarios? First, there's enough other overhead to an INSERT that you'd not save much percentagewise. Second, not using WAL doesn't come for free: the cost is having to fsync the whole table afterwards. So it really only makes sense for commands that one can expect are writing pretty much all of the table. I could easily see it being a net loss for individual INSERTs. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org