Horton

Re: New Table Access Methods for Multi and Single Inserts

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Luc Vlaming <luc@swarm64.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Paul Guo <guopa@vmware.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Date: 2021-03-08T13:07:38Z
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.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 11:15 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Please review the v3 patch set further.
>
> Below is the performance gain measured for CREATE TABLE AS with the
> new multi insert am propsed in this thread:
>
> case 1 - 2 integer(of 4 bytes each) columns, 3 varchar(8), tuple size
> 59 bytes, 100mn tuples
> on master - 185sec
> on master with multi inserts - 121sec, gain - 1.52X
>
> case 2 - 2 bigint(of 8 bytes each) columns, 3 name(of 64 bytes each)
> columns, 1 varchar(8), tuple size 241 bytes, 100mn tuples
> on master - 367sec
> on master with multi inserts - 291sec, gain - 1.26X
>
> case 3 - 2 integer(of 4 bytes each) columns, tuple size 32 bytes, 100mn tuples
> on master - 130sec
> on master with multi inserts - 105sec, gain - 1.23X
>
> case 4 - 2 bigint(of 8 bytes each) columns, 16 name(of 64 bytes each)
> columns, tuple size 1064 bytes, 10mn tuples
> on master - 120sec
> on master with multi inserts - 115sec, gain - 1.04X

Performance numbers look good, especially with the smaller tuple size.
I was looking into the patch and I have a question.

+static inline void
+table_insert_v2(TableInsertState *state, TupleTableSlot *slot)
+{
+ state->rel->rd_tableam->tuple_insert_v2(state, slot);
+}
+
+static inline void
+table_multi_insert_v2(TableInsertState *state, TupleTableSlot *slot)
+{
+ state->rel->rd_tableam->multi_insert_v2(state, slot);
+}

Why do we need to invent a new version table_insert_v2?  And also why
it is named table_insert* instead of table_tuple_insert*?

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com