Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Well, if the table is created in the same transaction (which is the only
> > case under consideration), no other sessions can write to the table so
> > you are just writing the entire table on commit, rather than to t
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 23:16 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, if the table is created in the same transaction (which is the only
> case under consideration), no other sessions can write to the table so
> you are just writing the entire table on commit, rather than to the WAL.
The transaction can
Jaime Casanova writes:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> It can be very helpful when loading a lot of data, so I'm not in favor of
>> removing it altogether. Maybe WAL-log the first 1 rows or such normally,
>> and skip WAL after that. Of course, loading 10001 r
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06.08.2011 13:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I think we should remove the COPY optimisation because of this and
>> definitely not extend INSERT SELECT to perform it automatically.
>
> It can be very helpful when loading a lot of data, so I'm not in
> favor of removing it
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 06.08.2011 13:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> I think we should remove the COPY optimisation because of this and
>> definitely not extend INSERT SELECT to perform it automatically.
>
> It can be very helpful when loading a lot of data, s
On 06.08.2011 13:13, Simon Riggs wrote:
I think we should remove the COPY optimisation because of this and
definitely not extend INSERT SELECT to perform it automatically.
It can be very helpful when loading a lot of data, so I'm not in favor
of removing it altogether. Maybe WAL-log the first
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Well, if the table is created in the same transaction (which is the only
> case under consideration), no other sessions can write to the table so
> you are just writing the entire table on commit, rather than to the WAL.
Below a certain poin
On 06.08.2011 06:32, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
However, for small operations it's a net loss - you avoid writing a WAL
record, but you have to fsync() the heap instead. If you only modify a few
rows, the extra fsync (or fsyncs if there are indexes too) is more expensive
than writing the W
>
> However, for small operations it's a net loss - you avoid writing a WAL
> record, but you have to fsync() the heap instead. If you only modify a few
> rows, the extra fsync (or fsyncs if there are indexes too) is more expensive
> than writing the WAL.
>
> We'd need a heuristic to decide whether
Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 18:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I am confused how generating WAL traffic that is larger than the heap
> > file we are fsync'ing can possibly be slower. Are you just throwing out
> > an idea to try to make me prove it?
>
> That's worded in a slightly
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 18:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am confused how generating WAL traffic that is larger than the heap
> file we are fsync'ing can possibly be slower. Are you just throwing out
> an idea to try to make me prove it?
That's worded in a slightly confusing way, but here is th
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> > Right. ?I brought up SELECT INTO because you could make the argument
>> > that INSERT ... SELECT is not a utility command like the other ones and
>> > theref
On 05.08.2011 04:23, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 20:55 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
It would act like COPY, meaning the table would have to be truncated or
created in the same transaction.
Well, in that case it could work for any INSERT. No need for a SELECT to
be involved. For that
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 20:55 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It would act like COPY, meaning the table would have to be truncated or
> created in the same transaction.
Well, in that case it could work for any INSERT. No need for a SELECT to
be involved. For that matter, why not make it work for DELET
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 17:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Right. I brought up SELECT INTO because you could make the argument
>> > that INSERT ... SELECT is not a utility command like the other ones and
>> > therefore
Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 17:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Right. I brought up SELECT INTO because you could make the argument
> > that INSERT ... SELECT is not a utility command like the other ones and
> > therefore can't be done easily, but CREATE TABLE AS is internal SELECT
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 17:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Right. I brought up SELECT INTO because you could make the argument
> that INSERT ... SELECT is not a utility command like the other ones and
> therefore can't be done easily, but CREATE TABLE AS is internal SELECT
> INTO and implemented in
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Right. ?I brought up SELECT INTO because you could make the argument
> > that INSERT ... SELECT is not a utility command like the other ones and
> > therefore can't be done easily, but CREATE TABLE AS is internal SEL
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Right. I brought up SELECT INTO because you could make the argument
> that INSERT ... SELECT is not a utility command like the other ones and
> therefore can't be done easily, but CREATE TABLE AS is internal SELECT
> INTO and implemented in
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/04/2011 04:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> One thing we don't optimize is INSERT ... SELECT when the table is
> >> created or truncated in the same transaction. Seems we could.
> >> We optimize CREATE TABLE AS which is effectively SELECT .
On 08/04/2011 04:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
One thing we don't optimize is INSERT ... SELECT when the table is
created or truncated in the same transaction. Seems we could.
We optimize CREATE TABLE AS which is effectively SELECT ... INTO using a
different syntax. Is this a
Bruce Momjian writes:
> One thing we don't optimize is INSERT ... SELECT when the table is
> created or truncated in the same transaction. Seems we could.
> We optimize CREATE TABLE AS which is effectively SELECT ... INTO using a
> different syntax. Is this a TODO?
Considering that SELECT INTO
22 matches
Mail list logo
