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
