2017-06-30 15:45 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > > > 2017-06-30 15:42 GMT+02:00 Alex K <kondratov.alek...@gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2017-06-30 14:23 GMT+02:00 Alex K <kondratov.alek...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> Thus, it results in a ~60% performance boost per each x2 >> multiplication of >> >> parallel processes, which is consistent with the initial estimation. >> >> >> > >> > the important use case is big table with lot of indexes. Did you test >> > similar case? >> >> Not yet, I will try it, thank you for a suggestion. But how much is it >> 'big table' and 'lot of indexes' in numbers approximately? >> > > the size is about 1/3 RAM size, 60 columns, 30 indexes >
maybe some variants can be interesting .. 1/30 RAM, 1/20 RAM, 1/10 RAM, 1/3 RAM and a) when bottleneck is IO, b) when bottleneck is CPU Pavel > > Regards > > Pavel > > >> >> Also, index updates and constraint checks performance are what I cannot >> control during COPY execution, so probably I have not to care too much >> about that. But of course, it is interesting, how does COPY perform in >> that case. >> >> >> Alexey >> > >
