Horton

Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of various SQL commands with it for Heap AM

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Luc Vlaming <luc@swarm64.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-05-15T09:14:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. libpq: Fix some issues in TAP tests for service files

  2. Multiple revisions to the GROUP BY reordering tests

  3. Explore alternative orderings of group-by pathkeys during optimization.

Sorry to interject, but --

On 2024-May-15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:

> It looks like with the use of the new multi insert table access method
> (TAM) for COPY (v20-0005), pgbench regressed about 35% [1].

Where does this acronym "TAM" comes from for "table access method"?  I
find it thoroughly horrible and wish we didn't use it.  What's wrong
with using "table AM"?  It's not that much longer, much clearer and
reuses our well-established acronym AM.

We don't use IAM anywhere, for example (it's always "index AM"), and I
don't think we'd turn "sequence AM" into SAM either, would we?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/