Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
Date: 2008-09-30 04:13:06
Message-ID: 48E1A752.2060807@rhyme.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Unfortunately, it quite possibly would. You would not be able to build
> two indexes on the same table in parallel, even though they wouldn't
> have conflicting locks.
I suppose so, but:

1. By the same logic it might speed things up; it might build two
completely separate indexes and thereby avoid (some kind of) contention.
In any case, it would most likely do *something* else. It should only
reduce performance if (a) it can do nothing or (b) there is a benefit in
building multiple indexes on the same table at the same time.

2. Perhaps if there are a limited number of items that share
dependencies but which are known to be OK (ie. indexes), maybe list them
in the inner loop as exceptions and allow them to run parallel. This
would mean a failure to list a new TOC item type would result in worse
performance rather than a crash.




In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robins TharakanDate: 2008-09-30 06:19:31
Subject: Function management in PG
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-09-30 03:59:23
Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group