From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz
Cc: postgres@jeltef.nl
Cc: smithpb2250@gmail.com
Cc: vignesh21@gmail.com
Cc: jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com
Cc: stark.cfm@gmail.com
Cc: hlinnaka@iki.fi
Cc: barwick@gmail.com
Cc: jchampion@timescale.com
Cc: pryzby@telsasoft.com
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Cc: rjuju123@gmail.com
Cc: jakub.wartak@tomtom.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com
Subject: Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 15:50:51 -0500
Message-ID: <Zl9-K3a0-AW4WZrl@nathan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240604.160032.391318120410028809.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
References: <20240524.160916.2199777355532445323.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
<CAGECzQRQzpE-EzJszHHvku1JLw+opu+KxE7rBqfyTmmgFwxrRQ@mail.gmail.com>
<Zl5bKIdOWiHHb-9N@paquier.xyz>
<20240604.160032.391318120410028809.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
+Bharath
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 04:00:32PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:09:12 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
>> Another point that Nathan has made is that it may be more appealling
>> to study how this is better than an integration with the multi-INSERT
>> APIs into AMs, so as it is possible to group the inserts in batches
>> rather than process them one-at-a-time, see [1]. I am ready to accept
>> that what this patch does is more efficient as long as everything is
>> block-based in some cases. Still there is a risk-vs-gain argument
>> here, and I am not sure whether what we have here is a good tradeoff
>> compared to the potential risk of breaking things. The amount of new
>> infrastructure is large for this code path. Grouping the inserts in
>> large batches may finish by being more efficient than a WAL stream
>> full of FPWs, as well, even if toast values are deformed? So perhaps
>> there is an argument for making that optional at query level, instead.
>
> I agree about the uncertainties. With the switching feature mentioned
> above, it might be sufficient to use the multi-insert stuff in the
> existing path. However, the uncertainties regarding performance would
> still remain.
Bharath, does the multi-INSERT stuff apply when changing a table to be
LOGGED? If so, I think it would be interesting to compare it with the FPI
approach being discussed here.
--
nathan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, postgres@jeltef.nl, smithpb2250@gmail.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com, stark.cfm@gmail.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi, barwick@gmail.com, jchampion@timescale.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, rjuju123@gmail.com, jakub.wartak@tomtom.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com
Subject: Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation
In-Reply-To: <Zl9-K3a0-AW4WZrl@nathan>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox