X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F103A9FA4A7
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:58:24 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 27938-05 for
	<pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:58:15 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F1C9F9316
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:58:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6K3w7gK023199;
	Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:58:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris.kings-lynne@calorieking.com>,
	"Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	Susanne Ebrecht <susanne.ebrecht@credativ.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] 8.2 features? 
In-reply-to: <44BEA710.6060700@joeconway.com> 
References: <44B69778.5050104@dunslane.net>
	<50461.84.63.113.55.1152832991.squirrel@pezone.net>
	<ECCAAC0A3182895D3D12B0E8@[172.26.14.247]>
	<44B7ADFC.90205@dunslane.net> <44BC0432.3040509@joeconway.com>
	<44BC661F.80609@joeconway.com> <44BCD06C.3060409@calorieking.com>
	<44BCF1D4.3010807@dunslane.net> <5842.1153246741@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44BD8854.9060506@calorieking.com> <15212.1153279954@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44BDB2F5.7080003@joeconway.com> <44BEA710.6060700@joeconway.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
	message dated "Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:41:36 -0700"
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:58:07 -0400
Message-ID: <23198.1153367887@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200607/870
X-Sequence-Number: 86725

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> I did some testing today against mysql and found that it will easily 
> absorb insert statements with 1 million targetlists provided you set 
> max_allowed_packet high enough for the server. It peaked out at about 
> 600MB, compared to my test similar last night where it was using about 
> 3.8 GB when I killed it.

> So the question is, do we care?

What's the performance like relative to mysql?  It seems hard to believe
that we can afford the overhead of a separate INSERT statement per row
(duplicating all the work of parse analysis, rewrite, planning, executor
start/stop) ... at least not without looking mighty bad.

			regards, tom lane