Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive
Date: 2016-08-19 00:42:32
Message-ID: 20160819004232.rzfjbnubizthtgl7@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-08-18 17:35:47 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> I can review this next week.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Given the time frame that you have in mind, I won't revisit the
> question the parallel CLUSTER CPU bottleneck issue until this is
> committed. The patch might change things enough that that would be a
> waste of time.

How large was the index & table in question? I mean this really only
comes into effect at 100+ segments.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-08-19 00:43:53 Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-08-19 00:35:47 Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive