Re: [PATCH] Better Performance for PostgreSQL with large INSERTs
| От | Andres Freund | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] Better Performance for PostgreSQL with large INSERTs | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | s2dvojvadijype6hlsl3oyladlvkd47thtrs65x6mkhzt4cagk@r3wpzxfu7tpw обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Better Performance for PostgreSQL with large INSERTs (Philipp Marek <philipp@marek.priv.at>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: [PATCH] Better Performance for PostgreSQL with large INSERTs
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi,
On 2025-09-30 10:42:00 +0200, Philipp Marek wrote:
> Here's the patch again, this time with a 128kB buffer size.
> 
> This gives us nearly the same gains (~7%) for the blob INSERTs,
> and the additional memory usage (120kB) shouldn't really matter,
> with "temp_buffer"s 8MB and "work_mem" 4MB defaults.
> 
> Making it configurable would give a much more complex patch --
> so I suggest just using this fixed size.
Have you tried to verify that this doesn't cause performance regressions in
other workloads? pq_recvbuf() has this code:
    if (PqRecvPointer > 0)
    {
        if (PqRecvLength > PqRecvPointer)
        {
            /* still some unread data, left-justify it in the buffer */
            memmove(PqRecvBuffer, PqRecvBuffer + PqRecvPointer,
                    PqRecvLength - PqRecvPointer);
            PqRecvLength -= PqRecvPointer;
            PqRecvPointer = 0;
        }
        else
            PqRecvLength = PqRecvPointer = 0;
    }
I do seem to recall that just increasing the buffer size substantially lead to
more time being spent inside that memmove() (likely due to exceeding L1/L2).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
		
	В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: