Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmoa=9k4DSOOtX3rx5hudCSOOBQnqFaVu2kRoO9r5djW2Jw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On the other hand, the problem of the FSM taking up 24kB for an 8kB >>>> table seems clearly worth fixing, but I don't think I have the cycles >>>> for it at present. Maybe a TODO is in order. > >> I certainly think that'd be worth a TODO. Whether the rest of this is >> worth worrying about I'm not sure. > > Surely we could just prevent creation of the FSM until the table has > reached at least, say, 10 blocks. > > Any threshold beyond one block would mean potential space wastage, > but it's hard to get excited about that until you're into the dozens > of pages. I dunno, I think one-row tables are pretty common. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: