Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D3E19713C3 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:12:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from mx01.bfk.de ([193.227.124.2]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RXtt9-0004C5-1i for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:12:49 +0000 Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1RXtss-0000CY-IY; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:12:30 +0000 Received: by bfk.de with local id 1RXtss-0007IN-D0; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:12:30 +0000 From: Florian Weimer To: Robert Haas Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table References: <82ipm51tcd.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:12:30 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Robert Haas's message of "Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:23:50 -0500") Message-ID: <827h29q4pd.fsf@mid.bfk.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) X-Archive-Number: 201112/240 X-Sequence-Number: 199492 * Robert Haas: > I tried whacking out the call to GetPageWithFreeSpace() in > RelationGetBufferForTuple(), and also with the unpatched code, but the > run-to-run randomness was way more than any difference the change > made. Is there a better test case? I think that if you want to exercise file system lookup performance, you need a larger directory, which presumably means a large number of tables. --=20 Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra=DFe 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99