Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54F4C4DA.10300@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/02/2015 09:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: >> Are we OK with a 10% overhead, caused by the locking? That's probably >> acceptable if that's what it takes to get UPSERT. But it's not OK just to >> solve the deadlock issue with regular insertions into a table with exclusion >> constraints. Can we find a scheme to eliminate that overhead? > > Looks like you tested a B-Tree index here. That doesn't seem > particularly representative of what you'd see with exclusion > constraints. Hmm. I used a b-tree to estimate the effect that the locking would have in the UPSERT case, for UPSERT into a table with a b-tree index. But you're right that for the question of whether this is acceptable for the case of regular insert into a table with exclusion constraints, other indexams are more interesting. In a very quick test, the overhead with a single GiST index seems to be about 5%. IMHO that's still a noticeable slowdown, so let's try to find a way to eliminate it. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: