On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 23:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > One concern that I have about this approach is that the situation in > which people are probably most concerned about COPY performance is > restoring a dump. In that case, the COPY will be the only thing > running, and using a BufferAccessStrategy is an anti-optimization. I > don't think it's a very big effect (any testing anyone can do on real > hardware rather than what I have would be appreciated) but I'm sort of > unsold of optimizing for what I believe to be the less-common use > case. If the consensus is to reverse course on this point I'm happy > to rip those changes back out and resubmit; they are a relatively > small proportion of the patch.
Having COPY use a BAS is mainly to ensure it doesn't swamp the cache. Which is a gain in itself. If you say its a loss you should publish timings to support that. Using a BAS for VACUUM was a performance gain, not a loss. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers